Linares v. Cosan Construction Corp.
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:22-cv-06267
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
In Linares v. Cosan Construction, Judge Broderick approved an amended wage-settlement agreement and granted the parties’ joint motion.
Jose Linares, Cosan Construction Corp., Cosan New York Inc., Terence Ferguson, and the attorneys involved in the settlement.
What happened
In Linares v. Cosan Construction Corp., Jose Linares and the defendants asked the court to approve a settlement of claims for unpaid overtime and other alleged wage violations under federal and New York law.
The court had rejected an earlier agreement because Linares had not provided damage calculations, case-specific billing records, or an acceptable explanation for a clause restricting publicity about the case. The amended agreement supplied the missing information and removed that clause.
Judge Broderick found the amended agreement fair and reasonable, approved it, and granted the parties’ joint motion for approval and a proposed dismissal with prejudice. Linares is to file the dismissal after the defendants fully pay the settlement and both checks clear.
The detailed version
- Linares v. Cosan Construction Corp. · No. 1:22-cv-06267
- Vernon Broderick
- June 3, 2024
Background
Jose Linares sued Cosan Construction Corp., Cosan New York Inc., and Terence Ferguson under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), New York Labor Law, and the New York State Wage Theft Prevention Act. His claims sought unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, compensation for alleged wage-notice and wage-statement violations, interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs.
After the parties reported reaching a settlement, the court required them to submit the agreement for approval. Because the Department of Labor had not approved the settlement, the court had to determine whether it was fair and reasonable. The court rejected the original agreement because Linares did not provide the spreadsheet supporting his alleged damages, his counsel did not initially provide billing records limited to Linares’s case, and the agreement’s “No Publicity” clause could have restricted truthful statements about his experience, claims, and lawsuit.
Amended Settlement
The parties filed an amended agreement on February 29, 2024. It included the missing damage calculations and case-specific billing information and removed the “No Publicity” clause.
Linares’s records estimated unpaid overtime of $2,805 and a possible total recovery of $15,610 if he prevailed fully. Under the amended agreement, the total settlement was $10,200, of which Linares would receive $6,666.67 and his counsel would receive $3,533.33. The court found Linares’s payment fair in relation to his possible recovery and found no indication of fraud, collusion, or bargaining other than at arm’s length.
The court also found the attorneys’ fees and costs fair and reasonable. Counsel’s stated lodestar—the reasonable hourly rate multiplied by the reasonable hours worked—was $3,308.05, while the agreement provided $3,533.33. The court noted that the requested amount was consistent with fee awards in other FLSA settlements.
Ruling
The court concluded that the amended settlement agreement was fair and reasonable and approved it. The parties’ joint motion seeking approval of the agreement and entry of the proposed Stipulation and Order of Dismissal with prejudice was GRANTED.
The court ordered that, within seven days after the defendants make full payment of the settlement amount and both checks clear, Linares must file the proposed stipulation of dismissal with prejudice.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.