Sanchez Gonzalez v. Tribeca Hummus Inc.
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:18-cv-10664
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
Sanchez Gonzalez v. Tribeca Hummus, Judge Ramos approved the parties’ $23,000 settlement and related attorney-fee award.
The ruling affects Bernabe Sanchez Gonzalez and the employees covered by the proposed settlement, the defendant entities and individuals, and plaintiffs’ counsel receiving the approved fees and expenses.
What happened
In Sanchez Gonzalez v. Tribeca Hummus Inc., the parties asked the court to approve a settlement resolving the plaintiffs’ claims. The court had previously found their submission inadequate because it did not explain the recovery amount.
The parties submitted an amended supporting letter while using the same settlement agreement. They estimated a maximum possible back-wage recovery of $51,240, but agreed to settle for $23,000. Plaintiffs would receive $14,910, while their counsel would receive $8,090, including fees and expenses.
Judge Ramos ruled that the settlement, attorney fees, costs, and limited release were fair and reasonable. He granted the parties’ request for settlement approval.
The detailed version
- Sanchez Gonzalez v. Tribeca Hummus Inc. · No. 1:18-cv-10664
- Edgardo Ramos
- Jan. 29, 2020
Background
Bernabe Sanchez Gonzalez brought the case individually and on behalf of other employees described as similarly situated. The defendants were Tribeca Hummus Inc., doing business as Nish Nush, Eyal Hen, Eyal Asulin, and Shai Sudai.
On August 26, 2019, the parties asked the court to approve their settlement agreement. On January 24, 2020, the court declined to approve the agreement as submitted because it did not provide a basis for the recovery figure, preventing the court from evaluating whether the recovery was fair and reasonable. The court directed the parties either to submit a revised agreement with that information, jointly state that they intended to abandon settlement and proceed to trial, or agree to dismiss the case without prejudice.
Settlement terms and analysis
On January 28, 2020, the parties submitted the same settlement agreement along with an amended supporting letter. The plaintiffs estimated that their maximum possible recovery was no more than $51,240 in back wages. The parties agreed to a total settlement of $23,000. Plaintiffs would receive $14,910, approximately 29 percent of the estimated maximum recovery.
The defendants asserted that complete and accurate time records from a swipe system would show that the plaintiff had always been properly paid. The court concluded that these disputes created substantial risks and uncertainties, including the possibility that the plaintiff could recover nothing at trial. In light of those risks and the costs of litigation, the court found the $23,000 settlement fair and reasonable.
The agreement allocated $8,090 to plaintiffs’ counsel, consisting of $7,450 in attorney fees and $636 in expenses. The court found that the fee amount was reasonable and supported by contemporaneous billing records describing the work performed and hours logged. The court also considered the lodestar method, which estimates a presumptively reasonable fee by multiplying a reasonable hourly rate by a reasonable number of hours. Attorney Jian Hang requested an hourly rate of $350, and lead attorney Lorena P. Duarte requested an hourly rate of $275. The court found those rates reasonable and calculated a lodestar of $11,312.50, which exceeded the requested fee amount.
The court also found that the agreement satisfied the required review under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. It noted that the release was narrow and limited to claims asserted or that could have been asserted in this action.
Disposition
Judge Edgardo Ramos concluded that the agreement was a fair and reasonable resolution of the plaintiffs’ claims. The parties’ request for approval of the proposed settlement was granted.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.