Mendez Tucubal v. MK 32 Restaurant Corp.
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:18-cv-01442
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Mendez Tucubal v. MK 32 Restaurant Corp., Judge Broderick approved a $60,000 wage settlement but awarded counsel $12,000 instead of $20,000.
Ricardo Arturo Mendez Tucubal, MK 32 Restaurant Corp., and Plaintiff’s counsel were affected. The settlement was approved, but counsel received $12,000 in attorney’s fees instead of the requested $20,000.
What happened
Mendez Tucubal v. MK 32 Restaurant Corp. involved court review of a proposed settlement of the plaintiff’s wage-and-hour claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The court had previously rejected the parties’ settlement because its release provision was too broad, and the parties submitted a revised agreement.
The court found the revised release and $60,000 settlement fair and reasonable. The settlement represented about 24% of the amount the plaintiff claimed he could have recovered at trial, including additional damages, and reflected the risks and costs of continued litigation. The court did not approve the requested $20,000 in attorney’s fees and costs, which was one-third of the settlement.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick approved the settlement but awarded the plaintiff’s counsel $12,000 in attorney’s fees, or 20% of the settlement, because the requested amount was excessive given the case’s limited litigation and the reasonable lodestar calculation.
The detailed version
- Mendez Tucubal v. MK 32 Restaurant Corp. · No. 1:18-cv-01442
- Vernon Broderick
- Nov. 1, 2019
Background
The parties asked the court to approve a settlement of Plaintiff’s wage-and-hour claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). In an earlier order, the court denied the proposed settlement without prejudice because it contained an overbroad release. The court permitted the parties either to submit a revised agreement or to abandon settlement. The parties submitted a revised agreement limiting the released claims to claims related to wage-and-hour violations.
Settlement Amount
The revised agreement provided for a gross settlement of $60,000. The parties represented that this amount was approximately 24% of Plaintiff’s potential recovery at trial, including liquidated damages. The court considered the risks and costs of continued litigation, the uncertainty of recovery, the parties’ arm’s-length negotiations through experienced counsel, and the absence of evidence of fraud or collusion. The court found the settlement agreement fair and reasonable.
Attorney’s Fees and Costs
Plaintiff’s counsel requested $20,000 in attorney’s fees and costs, equal to one-third of the total settlement. The request concerned work by Michael Faillace and Haleigh Amant. Counsel reported hourly rates of $450 for Faillace and $250 for Amant. The court found those rates unreasonably high for this case and used rates of $400 per hour for Faillace and $175 per hour for Amant in calculating the lodestar—the reasonable hours worked multiplied by reasonable hourly rates.
Using those rates, the court calculated a lodestar amount of $5,758.50, including costs. It found the requested $20,000 excessive because counsel spent only 25 total hours on a relatively simple case involving one plaintiff and minimal formal litigation. The court instead awarded counsel 20% of the settlement, or $12,000.
Disposition
The court approved the parties’ proposed settlement agreement. It did not find the requested attorney’s fees fair and reasonable and awarded Plaintiff’s counsel $12,000 in attorney’s fees rather than the requested $20,000. Judge Vernon S. Broderick signed the order.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.