Narvaez v. Hudson Park NY LLC
- Jesse Furman
- 1:24-cv-08531
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Narvaez v. Hudson Park NY LLC, Judge Furman approved a Fair Labor Standards Act settlement, addressed fees, and dismissed the case with prejudice.
Carlos Narvaez and Hudson Park NY LLC are directly affected by the approved settlement and dismissal. Plaintiff’s attorney is affected by the court’s treatment of the requested fees and costs.
What happened
In Narvaez v. Hudson Park NY LLC, the parties reached a settlement of Plaintiff’s claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage law. The court reviewed their explanation of the proposed agreement.
The court found the settlement fair and reasonable considering the claim, the risks of continued litigation, and its expense. It also found that attorney’s fees and costs of $3,150.40—equal to one-third of the recovery—were appropriate, while making no finding about the lawyer’s hourly rate or number of hours worked.
Judge Jesse M. Furman approved the settlement on the condition that any change to the agreement receive court approval. The court dismissed the case with prejudice, treated all pending motions as moot, canceled the scheduled pretrial conference, and directed the clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- Narvaez v. Hudson Park NY LLC · No. 1:24-cv-08531
- Jesse Furman
- May 14, 2025
Background
Carlos Narvaez brought this action against Hudson Park NY LLC under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. The parties notified the court that they had reached a settlement. The court previously directed them to submit a joint letter explaining why the proposed settlement should be approved, using the factors identified in Wolinsky v. Scholastic, Inc.
Settlement Approval
After reviewing the parties’ letter, the court found that the settlement was fair and reasonable. It considered the nature and scope of Plaintiff’s individual claim and the risks and expenses of additional litigation. The court required that any modification of the settlement agreement be approved by the court, even if the agreement purported to allow the parties to modify it without court approval.
Attorney’s Fees and Costs
Plaintiff sought approval of $3,150.40 in attorney’s fees and costs. The court noted that the proposed fee was high compared with the size of Plaintiff’s claim and recovery, but found no reason to reduce it because there were no opt-in plaintiffs, the case was not a collective action, and the fee award was based on an agreement between Plaintiff and counsel. The court concluded that a fee equal to one-third of the recovery was appropriate under cited precedent. It expressly made no findings about the reasonableness of counsel’s hourly rate or the number of hours counsel worked.
Disposition
Judge Jesse M. Furman approved the settlement subject to the court-approval condition for any modification. The court dismissed the case with prejudice. It also ruled that all pending motions were moot, canceled the initial pretrial conference scheduled for May 21, 2025, and directed the clerk to close the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.