Bello Paulino v. S & P Mini Market Corp.

Background

Jose Luis Bello Paulino brought claims against S & P Mini Market Corp. and Amantino Vega Rosario under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law. He alleged minimum-wage and overtime violations. S & P Mini Market Corp. was later deemed in default after its attorney withdrew, because the corporation could not appear without counsel.

A jury trial on Paulino’s claims against Rosario began on January 15, 2025. After both sides presented their evidence and the jury began deliberating, counsel announced that the parties had reached a settlement. On the record, Rosario’s attorney stated that Rosario would pay $20,000 within 30 days. Paulino’s attorney confirmed that understanding. The court also made clear that the settlement would replace any later jury verdict, that no judgment would be entered to enforce the payment, and that the settlement would require court approval under the FLSA.

The jury then returned a verdict finding that Paulino had failed to prove his claims against Rosario. After the verdict, Rosario’s attorney stated that Rosario did not believe a settlement had been reached. Paulino moved to enforce the settlement and sought the required approval of the FLSA settlement. Rosario did not oppose the motion and, by then, was proceeding without counsel.

Whether the Oral Settlement Was Binding

The court treated Paulino’s filing as a motion to enforce the settlement rather than a motion to vacate the jury verdict. Because no judgment had been entered, the court concluded that the rule governing relief from a judgment did not apply.

The court applied four factors used to determine whether parties intended to be bound by an oral settlement:

The court concluded that the parties intended to be bound by the oral settlement stated on the record on January 16, 2025.

FLSA Settlement Approval

Settlements of FLSA claims require approval by a court or the Department of Labor. The court therefore reviewed whether the settlement was fair and reasonable.

Paulino stated that his maximum possible recovery was approximately $460,000, including unpaid wages, liquidated damages, and prejudgment interest, although some amounts included claims that had already been dismissed. At trial, he sought $410,376.03. The court recognized that the $20,000 settlement was about 4.87% of the stated best-case damages, but found the amount reasonable because the jury’s questions suggested that it might find Paulino had not proved that he worked any compensable hours for Rosario. The court viewed obtaining a $20,000 payment despite that litigation risk as a favorable result for Paulino.

The settlement also avoided the possibility of appellate litigation. Paulino was represented by counsel, the agreement was discussed openly in court, and the court found no evidence of fraud or collusion. The court approved $3,658.35 in attorney fees and $8,657.20 in litigation expenses as reasonable. The expenses included filing, translation, service, and interpreter costs. The opinion states that the requested attorney fees represented about 32% of the recovery, less than the 40% contingency fee in Paulino’s retainer agreement.

Disposition

The court granted Paulino’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement and approved the agreement under the FLSA settlement-review standard. Rosario must pay Paulino $20,000 within 30 days of the July 7, 2025 Opinion and Order. Rosario may make the payment through Paulino’s attorney, Mark Marino, including through an escrow account identified by Marino if directed.

Because there was no just reason to delay resolving the claims against Rosario, the court directed the Clerk to enter judgment dismissing the case against Rosario on the ground that the parties had settled. The opinion does not state a disposition of the claims against S & P Mini Market Corp.