Leon v. Grotto Restaurant and Pizzeria LLC
- James Cott
- 1:23-cv-10152
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Leon v. Grotto Restaurant and Pizzeria LLC, Judge Cott approved the parties’ wage-and-hour settlement and retained jurisdiction to enforce it.
The ruling affected plaintiffs Olu-Solo Leon and Juan Castillo-Quintero and the defendants identified in the case, by approving their settlement and closing the case while retaining jurisdiction to enforce the settlement terms.
What happened
In Leon v. Grotto Restaurant and Pizzeria LLC, the plaintiffs alleged violations of federal minimum-wage and overtime rules and New York labor law. After a settlement conference, the parties asked the court to approve their proposed settlement agreements.
The court reviewed the agreements and the parties’ supporting letter. It found that the terms, including attorney’s fees and costs, appeared fair and reasonable under the circumstances. The court also considered that the defendants’ financial situation made collecting damages difficult and required a payment schedule.
Judge James L. Cott approved the settlement, retained jurisdiction to enforce its terms, signed and filed the parties’ dismissal order, and directed the Clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- Leon v. Grotto Restaurant and Pizzeria LLC · No. 1:23-cv-10152
- James Cott
- June 28, 2024
Background
Olu-Solo Leon and Juan Castillo-Quintero brought this wage-and-hour case against Grotto Restaurant and Pizzeria, LLC, and other defendants. The opinion states that the plaintiffs alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, including its minimum-wage and overtime provisions, as well as violations of New York Labor Law.
After a settlement conference before Judge Cott in April 2024, the parties consented to his jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) to review their proposed settlement. They submitted a joint letter and two proposed settlement agreements. The opinion explains that the case involved two plaintiffs, two separate entities, and their respective principals, so there were two separate agreements.
Court’s Analysis
The court reviewed the proposed agreements under the standard used for Fair Labor Standards Act settlements. It noted a strong presumption that such settlements are fair because the parties are generally better positioned than the court to assess the reasonableness of their agreement. The court also determined that the defendants’ apparent financial situation, including the need for a payment schedule, supported finding the settlement reasonable because collecting damages could otherwise be difficult.
The court found that all settlement terms, including the allocation of attorney’s fees and costs, appeared fair and reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. It also found that the agreement resulted from arm’s-length bargaining between experienced counsel and considered the factors identified in Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc. The opinion notes that attorney’s fees generally amount to one-third of an FLSA settlement in such cases, although there is no proportionality requirement. The court stated that approval of the settlement did not constitute approval of any tax allocations agreed to by the parties.
Ruling
The court approved the settlement. Consistent with the parties’ stipulation and order of dismissal, it retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement terms, signed and filed the dismissal order, and directed the Clerk to close the case. Judge James L. Cott did not state the settlement amounts in this order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.