Montero v. Primo Home Services Installation Inc.
- Ho
- 1:23-cv-07340
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Montero v. Primo Home Services Installation Inc., Judge Ho approved the parties’ $20,000 wage settlement and ordered them to file dismissal papers.
The two plaintiffs, potential opt-in plaintiff Nicholas Torres, plaintiffs’ attorneys, and the defendant parties are affected by the approved settlement and the order to file stipulated dismissal papers.
What happened
In Montero v. Primo Home Services Installation Inc., the parties reached a settlement of all issues after mediation and jointly asked the court to approve it. The court had previously denied their first approval request without prejudice, and the parties renewed it.
Judge Ho approved the $20,000 settlement. Plaintiffs’ attorneys will receive $7,062 for fees and costs, and the remaining funds will be divided equally among the two plaintiffs and potential opt-in plaintiff Nicholas Torres, with each receiving $4,312.66.
Judge Dale E. Ho found the settlement fair and reasonable, citing its estimated recovery compared with the unpaid overtime and the absence of fraud, collusion, or evidence that the agreement was not reached through arm’s-length negotiations. He ordered the parties to file their stipulated dismissal by June 21, 2024, and directed the clerk to close the approval motion.
The detailed version
- Montero v. Primo Home Services Installation Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-07340
- Ho
- June 6, 2024
Background
The parties reported that they had settled all issues after mediation through the District’s Mediation Program. Because the claims arose under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the court explained that, in the Second Circuit, parties generally cannot privately settle FLSA claims through a stipulated dismissal with prejudice without approval from the district court or the Department of Labor.
The parties first filed a joint motion for settlement approval on May 10, 2024. The court denied that motion on May 21, 2024, without prejudice to renewal. The parties renewed their motion on May 31, 2024.
Settlement terms and analysis
The court granted the renewed motion. The total settlement payment is $20,000. Plaintiffs’ attorneys will receive $7,062 for fees and costs, or 35.31% of the settlement fund. The court stated that this percentage was consistent with attorney-fee awards commonly approved in FLSA settlements in the district.
The remaining funds will be divided evenly among the two plaintiffs and Nicholas Torres, a potential opt-in plaintiff. Each is to receive $4,312.66. The plaintiffs estimated that this amount represented approximately 51% of their unpaid overtime wages, excluding liquidated damages and statutory penalties. The court noted that, because the FLSA generally provides for double damages, the settlement represented approximately 25% of the plaintiffs’ total damages when those damages were considered. The court found that this comparison was consistent with other settlements approved in the district.
The court also found no indication of fraud or collusion and no indication that the settlement was not the product of arm’s-length bargaining. It therefore found the settlement fair and reasonable.
Ruling and next steps
Judge Dale E. Ho ordered the parties to file on the electronic docket the stipulated agreement to dismiss the case, subject to the conditions in Paragraph 2 of their settlement agreement, no later than June 21, 2024. The clerk was directed to close the settlement-approval motion at docket entry 31. The opinion does not state that the case was dismissed in this order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.