Silva v. Consolidated Scaffolding, Inc.

Background

Wilber David Silva brought this action individually and on behalf of others similarly situated against Consolidated Scaffolding, Inc. and Tom Bowes. The parties submitted a joint letter asking the court to approve their settlement agreement and dismiss the action with prejudice.

Before settling, the parties had disputed several issues. The opinion identifies arguments that the complaint failed to state a claim, that Tom Bowes should not be sued individually, that conditional certification was inappropriate, that plaintiffs were not entitled to a jury trial, that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction or should not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims, and that arbitration agreements barred many employees’ claims from being heard in court.

Settlement Approval

The court reviewed the joint letter, settlement agreement, and record. Applying the factors identified in Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc., the court found that the settlement provided plaintiffs with a substantial recovery compared with their possible recovery range, avoided the burdens and expenses of continued litigation, reduced the risks to both sides, resulted from arm’s-length negotiations by experienced counsel, and was not the product of fraud or collusion. The court also noted that plaintiffs had received 95.6% of their requested damages; the opinion states that plaintiffs had requested $104,868 in total damages.

Attorney’s Fees and Costs

Plaintiffs’ counsel requested a contingency fee equal to one-third of the recovery. The court explained that one-third fees are generally accepted in wage-and-hour cases involving the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. As a cross-check, the court applied the lodestar method, which estimates a fee by multiplying reasonable hourly rates by reasonable hours worked. It found reasonable the requested hourly rates of $375 for Brandon A. Thomas and $450 for Rebecca Houlding, as well as counsel’s billed hours.

Counsel reported $29,587.50 in accrued attorney’s fees and sought a $32,926.20 contingency fee, representing a 1.12 multiplier of the accrued fees. The court found the fee and multiplier reasonable. Considering the factors from Goldberger v. Integrated Resources, Inc., including the time and labor involved, the litigation’s complexity and risk, the quality of representation, the fee’s relationship to the settlement, and public-policy considerations, the court found the one-third contingency fee appropriate.

The court also approved $402 for the cost of the complaint, $200 in fees paid to the Clerk of Court for admission of counsel to appear temporarily, and $880 in Spanish-language interpreter costs. It awarded total costs of $1,482. The settlement agreement provides that the attorney’s fees and costs will be paid from the settlement payments and not in addition to them.

Ruling

Judge Lorna Schofield ordered that the parties’ joint letter to approve the settlement was GRANTED, the settlement agreement was APPROVED, and the action was DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The court also retained jurisdiction until the settlement agreement’s terms had been complied with.