Morales Campos v. Up Thai Corp.
- Figueredo
- 1:19-cv-04730
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
Morales Campos v. Up Thai Corp.: Judge Figueredo approved the wage settlement, awarded counsel $8,720, and dismissed the action with prejudice.
The seven named plaintiffs and the defendants are affected. The plaintiffs will receive settlement payments in twelve installments, Plaintiffs’ counsel will receive $8,720 in attorneys’ fees, and the wage-and-hour action is dismissed with prejudice and without costs.
What happened
In Morales Campos v. Up Thai Corp., the court reviewed a proposed settlement of the plaintiffs’ wage-and-hour claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Earlier submissions lacked enough information about each plaintiff’s recovery, but the final submission provided that breakdown.
The court found the settlement reasonable because it resolved disputed issues about hours worked and wages paid, avoided the costs and risks of litigation, distributed payments proportionally to the plaintiffs’ individual damages assessments, and used a release limited to wage-and-hour claims. The court also approved $8,720 in attorneys’ fees.
Judge Figueredo approved the settlement, ordered payment in twelve installments beginning within 30 days, and dismissed the action with prejudice and without costs. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the case.
The detailed version
- Morales Campos v. Up Thai Corp. · No. 1:19-cv-04730
- Figueredo
- May 30, 2024
Background
The plaintiffs brought a wage-and-hour case under the Fair Labor Standards Act against Up Thai Corp. (doing business as Tung Thong 181) and Jirapat Puttana Wong. The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge for review of their proposed settlement.
The parties first submitted a settlement for approval in October 2023. The court found that submission inadequate because it did not provide enough information to evaluate the settlement’s fairness, including each plaintiff’s estimated damages and the amount each plaintiff would receive. The parties submitted a revised proposal, but it still did not identify each plaintiff’s settlement payment or explain the factual and calculation bases for the recoveries. The court therefore required another submission.
Court’s analysis
The May 16, 2024 submission included a chart showing the compensation each plaintiff would receive. The court applied the standard that an FLSA settlement may be approved when it results from contested litigation and represents a reasonable compromise of genuine disputes.
The settlement payments were less than the plaintiffs’ maximum possible recovery, but the court found the compromise reasonable because the parties disputed the number of hours worked and wages paid. The settlement would also avoid the expense, aggravation, and risks of litigation, which had not yet reached formal discovery. The court found no indication of fraud or collusion.
The court also found that the distribution was rational because each plaintiff’s payment was determined proportionally according to that plaintiff’s individual damages assessment. The release was limited to the wage-and-hour claims in the case, and the agreement contained no confidentiality provision. The court found Plaintiffs’ counsel’s requested $8,720 fee reasonable because it was less than one-third of the settlement amount and substantially less than the fee initially requested. The opinion does not state the total settlement amount.
Ruling and effect
The court approved the settlement. The settlement amount was to be paid in twelve installments beginning within 30 days of the order. In light of the settlement, the court dismissed the action with prejudice and without costs and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the case.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.