Andrades Cordoba v. Rivington Laundromat & Dry Cleaning, Inc.

Background

Maria Elena Andrades Cordoba brought this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case against MMLZ Corp., doing business as Rivington Laundromat, and Michael Zetts. The parties reached a settlement in February 2022. Because private settlements of FLSA claims require approval by the court or the Department of Labor, the parties submitted the proposed agreement for court review.

The court rejected the first settlement submission on April 8, 2022, because the parties had not provided enough information to show that it was fair and reasonable. The court rejected the second submission on January 8, 2024, because it did not adequately explain the $2,750 settlement amount or the difference between two reported figures for Plaintiff’s potential recovery: $11,716.78 and $11,713.21. The parties then submitted another joint letter, the settlement agreement, a damages calculation, and a fee calculation.

Settlement amount

The agreement provided for Plaintiff to receive $2,750, paid in one check to her attorneys. Counsel represented that Plaintiff believed she was owed $771 in unpaid overtime wages and $771 in liquidated damages. Including prejudgment interest, counsel calculated the total amount due on those wage claims as $1,716.78.

Plaintiff also alleged that Defendants violated New York law by failing to provide certain written documentation and wage statements. She alleged that those claims could support an additional $10,000 in damages. Counsel represented that those claims did not figure into the settlement negotiations because Plaintiff was willing to give them up in order to be compensated for the alleged unpaid wages and liquidated damages.

The court found the $2,750 settlement fair and reasonable. It considered counsel’s representations that Defendants had produced documents that could weaken the wage claims, that Plaintiff might not have standing to pursue the state-law documentation and wage-statement claims, and that Defendants had shown significant financial hardship. The court also found no basis to believe that fraud or collusion was involved. It accepted counsel’s explanation that the earlier $11,716.78 versus $11,713.21 discrepancy was a drafting and calculation error.

Other settlement terms

The court reviewed the remaining provisions and found no reason to reject them. The release applied only to the wage-and-hour allegations arising during the period covered by the case. The agreement did not contain confidentiality or non-disparagement provisions.

Attorneys’ fees and costs

The settlement agreement did not itself include a provision for attorneys’ fees, but the parties represented that Plaintiff’s counsel would receive $684.85 from the settlement fund for fees and costs. The amount was approximately 25 percent of the $2,750 settlement.

Counsel submitted records showing $402 in costs for the filing fee and 9.2 hours of work, including attorney rates of $450 and $350 per hour and a paralegal rate of $125 per hour. The court found that the requested amount was reasonable when evaluated both as a percentage of the settlement and against the time-based calculation known as the lodestar. The court also declined to reject the settlement merely because the fee amount was presented in the settlement-approval application rather than in the agreement itself.

Disposition

The court approved the parties’ agreement. It ordered Plaintiff’s counsel to submit, before April 3, 2025, proof that Plaintiff had been paid the settlement fund’s value after deduction of the approved $684.85 in attorneys’ fees. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.