Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 15, 2024

Morais v. DRG Hospitality Group, INC

Judge
Robert Lehrburger
Docket
1:24-cv-04379
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
FlsaEmploymentCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Morais v. DRG Hospitality, Judge Lehrburger approved the parties’ FLSA settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice.

Who this affects

The approved settlement affects Innacio Dos Santos Morais and others similarly situated, as well as DRG Hospitality Group, Inc. d/b/a Delmonico’s and Dennis Turcinovic. The case was dismissed and closed under the settlement’s terms.

What happened

Morais v. DRG Hospitality Group, INC. was a lawsuit by Innacio dos Santos Morais, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, seeking damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law against DRG Hospitality Group, Inc. and Dennis Turcinovic.

The parties jointly asked the court to approve their settlement. After reviewing the agreement and the parties’ letter, the court found that the settlement was fair and reasonable, resulted from negotiations with a neutral mediator, and was not the product of overreaching, fraud, or collusion. The court also found the attorney-fee provision and non-disparagement clause acceptable.

Judge Robert W. Lehrburger approved the settlement and dismissed and discontinued the case in its entirety, with prejudice, without costs or fees to any party except as provided in the settlement agreement. The court directed the Clerk to terminate pending motions and deadlines and close the case.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Morais v. DRG Hospitality Group, INC · No. 1:24-cv-04379
Judge
Robert Lehrburger
Date
Oct. 15, 2024

Background

Innacio Dos Santos Morais brought this action on behalf of himself and others similarly situated against DRG Hospitality Group, Inc., doing business as Delmonico’s, and Dennis Turcinovic. The claims sought damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., and the New York Labor Law.

Settlement Review

The parties submitted a joint request for approval of their fully executed settlement agreement. The court explained that it had to determine whether the FLSA settlement was fair and reasonable, resulted from arm’s-length negotiations, and did not reflect employer overreaching. The parties reached the agreement after working with a neutral mediator.

The court reviewed the settlement agreement and the parties’ letter, considering the prior proceedings, the risks, burdens, and costs of continuing the case, the possible recovery, the involvement of experienced counsel or the parties, attorney fees, and the possibility of fraud or collusion. The court found that the amount secured for the plaintiff reasonably accounted for his potential recovery and the risks of continued litigation. It also found that the attorney fees were fair and reasonable, and that the mutual non-disparagement clause was acceptable because it allowed truthful statements. Although the plaintiff’s release extended beyond wage-and-hour claims, the defendants’ release was at least equally broad.

Ruling

The court found the settlement agreement fair and reasonable and approved it. Because the case had been resolved by settlement, Judge Robert W. Lehrburger dismissed and discontinued the case in its entirety, with prejudice, without costs or fees to any party except as provided in the settlement agreement. The Clerk was requested to terminate all motions and deadlines and close the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.