Alexander v. DRG Hospitality Group, Inc.
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:23-cv-11101
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Alexander v. DRG Hospitality Group, Judge Ramos approved a revised settlement of wage claims under federal and New York law.
J’on Alexander, Juan Izquierdo, the proposed similarly situated plaintiffs, and DRG Hospitality Group, Inc., doing business as Delmonico’s.
What happened
J’on Alexander and Juan Izquierdo brought a proposed class action against DRG Hospitality Group, doing business as Delmonico’s, alleging unpaid wages, tips, overtime, and required wage notices under federal and New York law.
The court had previously rejected the parties’ settlement because its release was too broad, while finding the other provisions fair and reasonable. The parties submitted a revised agreement with a narrower release covering wage-and-hour claims related to the lawsuit.
In Alexander v. DRG Hospitality Group, Inc., Judge Edgardo Ramos found the revised agreement fair and reasonable and granted the parties’ motion for settlement approval.
The detailed version
- Alexander v. DRG Hospitality Group, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-11101
- Edgardo Ramos
- Mar. 7, 2025
Background
J’on Alexander and Juan Izquierdo filed a proposed class action against DRG Hospitality Group, Inc., doing business as Delmonico’s. They alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (NYLL). The allegations concerned misappropriated tips, unpaid or improperly calculated wages, overtime compensation, spread-of-hours compensation, and inadequate wage and notice statements. The opinion specifically states that Alexander asserted the minimum-wage, overtime, and spread-of-hours claims.
Earlier Settlement Motion
The parties first asked the court to approve their settlement on October 10, 2024. The court denied that motion on November 14, 2024, because it found the release provision objectionable. The court found the other settlement provisions fair and reasonable and directed the parties either to agree to dismissal without prejudice or to submit a revised agreement releasing Delmonico’s only from claims arising out of the action.
Court’s Analysis
Under Second Circuit precedent, private settlements of FLSA claims with prejudice require approval by the district court or the Department of Labor. The court must determine whether the agreement is fair and reasonable, considering factors such as the plaintiffs’ possible recovery, the burdens and expenses avoided by settlement, litigation risks, arm’s-length negotiation, and possible fraud or collusion. Courts may also reject agreements lacking support for the recovery amount or attorneys’ fees, or containing improper confidentiality provisions or overly broad releases.
The court found that the revised agreement contained no objectionable release. The release covered FLSA, NYLL, and other applicable wage-and-hour claims arising from the plaintiffs’ employment by Delmonico’s through the agreement’s effective date, but only those claims that were or could have been alleged in this action. The court therefore found the revised settlement fair and reasonable and approved it.
Disposition
The court granted the parties’ revised motion for settlement approval. The opinion does not state the settlement amount, attorneys’ fee amount, or whether the proposed class was formally certified.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.