Prudente v. Connect

Background

Yuly Prudente brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law. The complaint asserted three groups of claims: unpaid overtime under the FLSA, unpaid overtime under New York law, and other New York wage violations, including failure to pay wages and failure to provide wage notices.

The parties first submitted a proposed settlement, but the court rejected it in a January 30, 2025 order because the information provided was insufficient to evaluate the basis for Prudente’s estimated recovery. The parties then submitted a revised settlement agreement, a supporting letter, and a defense submission from mediation.

Settlement Approval

Because the Department of Labor had not approved the settlement, the court independently reviewed whether it was fair and reasonable. The court considered the total circumstances, including the possible recovery, the litigation burdens and expenses the settlement would avoid, the risks of litigation, whether the agreement resulted from negotiations between experienced counsel, and whether fraud or collusion appeared to be involved.

The revised agreement requires a total payment of $30,000. It allocates $19,422 to Prudente, $9,711 to her attorneys as fees, and $867 to her attorneys for costs. Prudente estimated that her total possible recovery at trial was approximately $294,750. The court noted that the settlement amount paid directly to Prudente was approximately 6.6% of that estimate. The court also noted that excluding $32,750 in liquidated damages attributed to expenses would produce a revised potential recovery of $262,000 and a settlement percentage of approximately 7.4%.

Although the recovery was at the lower end of percentages commonly approved in the district, the court found that other considerations supported approval. The agreement followed negotiations conducted by experienced counsel, the parties had exchanged initial disclosures and other information, and they had participated in mediation. The parties disputed Prudente’s hours, period of employment, and employment status, and the defendants maintained that she was not owed overtime compensation. The court found that resolving those disputes could require costly and time-consuming litigation. It also found no evidence of fraud, collusion, improper bargaining pressure, or a restrictive confidentiality or non-disparagement provision. The release was limited to wage- and compensation-related claims under the FLSA, New York Labor Law, or other applicable law.

Attorney Fees and Costs

The court separately reviewed the requested fees and costs. It approved the $867 in costs because they represented filing, service, and postage expenses of the type attorneys ordinarily charge to clients.

The requested $9,711 fee was approximately one-third of the total settlement. Prudente’s attorney documented 21.10 hours of work at $500 per hour, totaling $10,550 under the billing records. The documented work included prelitigation investigation, case planning, drafting the pleading, informal discovery, mediation preparation and participation, and preparing the settlement-approval motion. The court found the fee amount, billing rate, and hours reasonable.

Disposition

Judge Vernon S. Broderick approved the revised settlement agreement, including its fee and cost provisions. The court granted Prudente’s motion seeking approval of the revised agreement. It denied Prudente’s motion to expedite a ruling as moot. The action was dismissed with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a), and the court retained jurisdiction solely to enforce the settlement agreement. The clerk was directed to close the motion at Doc. 27 and terminate the action.