Sanchez Gonzalez v. Tribeca Hummus Inc.
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:18-cv-10664
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Sanchez Gonzalez v. Tribeca Hummus, Judge Ramos declined to approve a wage settlement because the parties did not explain the proposed recovery figures.
Bernabe Sanchez Gonzalez, the other employees he sought to represent, Tribeca Hummus Inc. doing business as Nish Nush, and defendants Eyal Hen, Eyal Asulin, and Shai Sudai.
What happened
In Sanchez Gonzalez v. Tribeca Hummus Inc., Bernabe Sanchez Gonzalez sued his former employer and three individuals under federal and New York wage laws, seeking unpaid wages, damages, fees, and costs. The parties asked the court to approve their settlement.
The court said it could approve the settlement only if the agreement was fair and reasonable. The parties did not explain how they calculated the recovery amount or provide estimates of the hours Sanchez worked and his applicable wage, so the court could not evaluate the settlement.
Judge Edgardo Ramos said the court would not approve the settlement unless the parties corrected that problem. He gave them three options: submit a revised agreement, jointly state that they would abandon settlement and continue toward trial, or agree to dismiss the case without prejudice.
The detailed version
- Sanchez Gonzalez v. Tribeca Hummus Inc. · No. 1:18-cv-10664
- Edgardo Ramos
- Jan. 24, 2020
Background
Bernabe Sanchez Gonzalez brought the action individually and for other similarly situated employees against Tribeca Hummus Inc., doing business as Nish Nush, and Eyal Hen, Eyal Asulin, and Shai Sudai. He asserted claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage law, the New York Labor Law, and the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act. He sought minimum wages, overtime wages, liquidated damages, interest, attorney’s fees, and costs.
The parties submitted a Settlement Agreement and General Release for court approval. The court explained that, in this federal district, parties cannot privately settle Fair Labor Standards Act claims with prejudice without approval from the court or the Department of Labor. The court therefore had to determine whether the proposed agreement was fair and reasonable.
Reason for the ruling
The court found the settlement submission deficient because the parties did not provide the basis for the proposed recovery amount. In particular, they did not give the court each party’s estimate of the number of hours Sanchez worked or the applicable wage. Without that information, the court could not understand how the parties calculated the settlement figures or perform its duty to assess whether the agreement was fair and reasonable.
Disposition
The court stated that it would not approve the settlement unless the parties corrected the identified deficiency. It gave the parties three options by January 31, 2020:
- Submit a revised agreement explaining the basis for the recovery figures.
- Submit a joint letter stating that they intended to abandon settlement and continue to trial, after which the court would reopen the case and schedule a pretrial conference.
- Stipulate to dismissal of the case without prejudice, which the court said did not require approval under the cited Second Circuit precedent.
The order did not approve the proposed settlement. It also did not decide the underlying wage claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.