Bantsadze v. Burger Man Inc.
- Ho
- 1:23-cv-10043
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Bantsadze v. Burger Man, Judge Ho approved the wage-claim settlement and granted counsel’s request for attorneys’ fees.
GVANTSA BANTSADZE, Burger Man Inc. and the other defendants, and Plaintiff’s counsel are affected by the approved settlement, fee award, payment deadline, and required dismissal filing.
What happened
In Bantsadze v. Burger Man Inc., the parties asked the court to approve their settlement of Plaintiff’s claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. They revised the agreement after removing a provision restricting republication.
The settlement provides for a total payment of $18,500.00, with Plaintiff receiving $11,878.00 after fees and expenses. The court found the agreement fair and reasonable because it reflected litigation risks, factual disputes, expected costs, and arm’s-length negotiations. It also found that the agreement’s truthful-statement exception and release were fair.
Judge Dale E. Ho granted Plaintiff’s counsel’s request for $6,622.00 in fees and expenses. Defendants must make the initial payment by December 25, 2024, and Plaintiff must file a dismissal stipulation within seven days after receiving it; proceedings remain stayed pending further court order.
The detailed version
- Bantsadze v. Burger Man Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-10043
- Ho
- Nov. 25, 2024
Background
On August 14, 2024, the parties jointly moved for approval of their settlement of Plaintiff’s claims. The original agreement included a “no re-publication” provision. On November 8, 2024, the court directed the parties either to resubmit the agreement without that provision or to provide authority supporting its approval. On November 22, 2024, the parties submitted a revised agreement that removed the provision.
The settlement concerns claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The total settlement payment is $18,500.00. After attorneys’ fees and costs, Plaintiff will receive $11,878.00, which the parties described as approximately 17% of the $71,414.29 maximum total damages Plaintiff estimated could be recovered at trial.
Settlement Approval
The court approved the settlement as fair and reasonable. It relied on the nature and scope of Plaintiff’s claims, the risks and expenses of continued litigation, significant factual disputes, and the parties’ arm’s-length negotiations through experienced counsel. The court noted that continued litigation could require a court-licensed translator, at least two party depositions, and other litigation costs. The settlement also avoided the risks of losing at trial, recovering less than the settlement amount, or obtaining a judgment that could not be recovered.
The agreement included a “No Negative Statements” provision, but it also allowed Plaintiff and Defendants to speak truthfully about Plaintiff’s alleged employment by Defendants and their experiences litigating the matter. The court found that truthful-statement exception sufficient to make the provision fair and reasonable. The court also found that the release provision was not overly broad or unfair.
Attorneys’ Fees and Case Administration
The court granted Plaintiff’s counsel’s request for attorneys’ fees. Counsel requested fees equal to 33% of the settlement amount, less expenses, plus $683.00 in identified expenses, for a total request of $6,622.00, or 35.8% of the settlement amount. The court found the request reasonable because one-third fees are routinely approved in Fair Labor Standards Act settlements in the Second Circuit, the request was below counsel’s documented lodestar amount of $10,650.50, and the attorneys’ and paralegal hourly rates were within ranges the court considered reasonable.
Under the settlement agreement, Defendants must deliver the initial payment by December 25, 2024. Plaintiff must file a stipulation of dismissal within seven days after receiving the initial payment. Judge Dale E. Ho ordered that all proceedings remain stayed pending further order of the court.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.