Craparotta v Ralph Lauren Corp.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Craparotta v Ralph Lauren Corp. 2018 NY Slip Op 30400(U) March 9, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 153553/2016 Judge: Nancy M. Bannon Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/12/2018 03:26 PM 1] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 25 INDEX NO. 153553/2015 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/12/2018 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: IAS PART 42 -----------------------------------------x NADINE CRAPARO~TA, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff Irrdex No.153553/2016 v DECISION AND ORDER RALPH LAUREN CORPORATION, RALPH LAUREN MEDIA, LLC, and,RALPH LAUREN RETAIL, INC., Defendant. MOT SEQ 002 -----------~-----------------------------x NANCY M. BANNON, J. I. INTRODUCTION In this ~lass action to recover unpai~ wages and benefits, the plaintiff moves for the certification of the settlement class, approval of a settlement of the class action, approval of the forms of notices and claims, the appointment of the plaintiff's counsel as class counsel, and the scheduling of a fairness hearing. The defendants do not oppose the motion. The motion is granted. '- II. BACKGROUND The plaintiff, Nadine Craparotta, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, commenced this action against Ralph Lauren Corporation, Ralph Lauren Media, LLC, and Ralph Lauren 2 of 9 [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/12/2018 03:26 PM 2] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 25 Retail, INDEX NO. 153553/2015 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/12/2018 Inc., alleging that, beginning on April 10, 2009, they violated Labor Law§§ 650 et seq., Labor Law§§ 190 et seq., and 12 NYCRR 142-2.1 by failing to pay the required minimum wage, and instead improperly designated her, and others similarly situated, as an intern or. trainee. 'The class sought to be certified consists of several hundred of these ~interns," and is defined as "all current and former unpaid interns engaged by Ralph Lauren Corporation, Ralph Lauren Media, LLC and Ralph Lauren Retail, Inc. at any time during the period from April 10, 2009, to the filing of Plaintiffs' motion to approve" the settlement agreement. The proposed class settlement will require the defendants to pay the gross sum of $323,452.50 into a settlement fund, of which $107,817.50 thereof is allocated to pay the fees of the plaintiff's attorneys. The defendants agree to separately withhold all appropriate payroll taxes. III. DISCUSSION A. Class Certification CPLR 908 provides that "[a] class action shall not be dismissed, discontinued, or compromised without the approval of the court. Notice of the proposed dismissal, discontinuance, or compromise shall be given to all members of the class in such - manner as the court directs." See Desrosiers v Perry Ellis 2 3 of 9 [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/12/2018 03:26 PM 3] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 25 INDEX NO. 153553/2015 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/12/2018 Menswear, LLC, 139 AD3d 473, 474 (P: Dept. 2016). An action that has yet to be certified as a class action is nonetheless deemed to be a class action for the purpose of the notification provisions of C~LR 908, since the risk that a plaintiff's decision to seek certification may be influenced by whether the settlement is satisfactory or not gives to that plaintiff an opportunity to use the class action claim for unfair personal aggrandizement in the settlement. Corp., 139 AD3d 503 (Pt See Vasguez v National Sec. Dept. 2016); Avena v Ford Motor Co., 85 AD2d 149 (ls: Dept. 1982). In any event, the plaintiff satisfied her burden of showing that certification of a class consisting of "all current and former unpaid interns engaged by Ralph Lauren Corporation; Ralph Lauren Media, LLC and Ralph Lauren Retail, Inc. at any time during the period from April 10, 2009, to the filing of Plaintiffs' motion to approve" the settlement agreement is warranted here. construed" 747, 748 319 [2~c Article 9 of the CPLR is to be "liberally (Beller v William Penn Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., [2" 0 Dept. 2007]; Jacobs v Macy's E, Dept. 2005]) 37 AD3d Inc., 17 AD3d 318, in favor of the granting of class certification if all of the prerequisites of CPLR 90l(a) (1)-(5) and CPLR 902(1)-(5) are met. See Matter of Colt Indus. Shareholder Litig., 77 NY2d 185 (1991); Klein v Robert's Am. Gourmet Food, Inc., 28 AD3d 63 (2nd Dept. 2006); Ackerman v Price 3 4 of 9 [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/12/2018 03:26 PM 4] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 25 INDEX NO. 153553/2015 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/12/2018 Waterhouse, 252 AD2d 179 (1st Dept. 1998). "The prerequisites articulated in CPLR 901(a) include proof that the proposed class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, that common questions of law and fact applicable to the class predominate over questions affecting only individual members, that claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and that the class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy." Globe Surgical Supply v GEICO Ins. Co., 59 AD3d 129, 135-136 (2nd Dept. 2008); see Ackerman v Price Waterhouse, supra. Here, the existence of hundreds of interns who were not paid wages satisfies the numerosity prong of the statute. Robison Oil Corp., 63 AD3d 667 (2nd Dept. 2D09) See Emilio v The putative class members share common questions of fact or law regarding the defendants' failure to pay them even a minimum wage for work they performed. See Kudinov v Kel-Tech Constr. Dept. 2009) Inc., 65 AD3d 481 (1st The claims of the class representative are typical of those of the class. The representative has demonstrated that she can fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class, as she has no claims potentially adverse to other class members. The class action procedure appears to be superior to other available methods of adjudicating the controversy, since the amount that might be recovered by an individual class member in a separate lawsuit might be quite modest. The relevant factors articulated in CPLR 902(1) ("[t]he interest of members of the class in individually controlling the 4 5 of 9 [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/12/2018 03:26 PM 5] INDEX NO. 153553/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 25 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/12/2018 prosecution or defense of separate actions"), CPLR 902(2) ("[t]he impracticability or inefficiency of prosecuting or defending separate actions") and CPLR 902(3) ("[t]he extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already commenced by or against members of the class") may, under the circumstances of this case, be subsumed under the prerequisite of superiority. See CPLR 901(a) (5); Globe Surgical Supply v GEICO Ins. Co., supra. CPLR 902(4), which requires consideration of "[t]he desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of· the claim in the particular forum" is satisfied here, since the concentration of the claims in New York County, where the defendants have their principal offices and the internships were served, is desirable. Misc 3d 1224(A)~ See Galdamez v Biordi Constr. Corp., 13 2006 NY Slip Op 51969(U), County 2006), affd 50 AD3d 357 *5 (Sup Ct, N.Y. (l 5 c Dept. 2008). CPLR 902(5) requires consideration of "[t]he difficulties likely to be encountered in the management of a class action." The plaintiff has demonstrated that, in light of the fact that the membership in the class is not overwhelmingly large, the internships were similar to each of time, other~ and the claims cover only a limited period "the claims as set forth in the complaint can be efficiently and economically managed by the court on a classwide basis." Globe Surgical Supply v GEICO Ins. Co., supra, at 136. 5 6 of 9 [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/12/2018 03:26 PM 6] INDEX NO. 153553/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 25 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/12/2018 B. Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement This court must make an initial proposed settlement "is fair, evalu~tion adequate, of whether the reasonable, and in the best interest of class mervbers." Klein v Robert's Am. -Gourmet Food, Inc., supra, at 73; Matter of Traffic Exec. Assoc.-Eastern R.R., 627 F2d 631, 634 (2nd Cir. 1980). "Where, as here, the action is primarily one for the recovery of money damages, determining the adequacy of a proposed settlement generally involves balancing the value of that settlement against the present value of the anticipated recovery following a trial on the merits, discounted for the inherent risks of litigation." Klein, supra, at 73. Since the minimum wage in New York in 2009 was $7.15 per hour, a person working 16 hours per week would have been entitled to $114.40 per week. The lump sum fund set forth in the settlement agreement to properly pay for short-term internships, in which those designated as interns or trainees worked for approximately 16 hours each week for a period of a few months, fairly and adequately compensates the class members for their unpaid wages and is in their best interest. The settlement here provides for sufficient notice to all class members, as it directs that each member be provided with a copy of the settlement agreement and all forms by first class mail and e-mail. 597 See Vasguez v National Sec. Corp., (Sup Ct, N.Y. County 2015), affd 139 AD3d 503 2016) . 48 Misc 3d (1st Dept. It also provides for opt-out rights for those who wish to 6 7 of 9 [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/12/2018 03:26 PM 7] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 25 INDEX NO. 153553/2015 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/12/2018 pursue their remedies on an individual basis, and thus comports with the requirem~nts of due process. See Jiannaras v Alfant, 27 NY3d 349 (2016); Hibbs v Marvel Enters., 19 AD3d 232 2005). (1st Dept. The proposed notice and claim forms conform to generally accepted class action forms. See Hibbs v Marvel Enters., supra; Matter of Colt Indus. Shareholder Li tig., 155 AD2d 154 1990) . (1st Dept. The affidavit of the plaintiff's counsel describes dozens of class actions that her firm has litigated successfully, which "amply demonstrated its experience and skill in class action litigation, and that it will adequately represent the interest of all class members." Ackerman v Price Waterhouse, C. Fairness supra, at 195. Hea~ing The plaintiff also seeks an order scheduling a "fairness hearing" pursuant to Fed. R. Ci v. P. 23 (a) ( 2) , a procedure which has been adopted in CPLR article 9 class actions in New York. See Jiannaras v Alfant, supra. That application is granted, the hearing is scheduled, and all parties shall appear on April 18, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. IV. CONCLUSION Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the plaintiff's motion to certify a settlement 7 8 of 9 [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/12/2018 03:26 PM 8] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 25 INDEX NO. 153553/2015 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/12/2018 class, to preliminarily approve the settlement agreement dated February 2, 2017, attached, to approve the forms for notices and claims,attached, and to appoint the plaintiff's counsel as class counsel is granted, without opposition, the class is certified; the settlement agreement is preliminarily approved, and the forms are approved; and it is further, ORDERED that a fairness hearing shall be conducted on April 18, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. This constitutes the Decision and Order of the court. Dated: March 9, 2018 ENTER: J.S.C. HONe NA~CY f\11. BANNON I J 8 9 of 9

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.