Santi v. Hot In Here, Inc.
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:18-cv-03028
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Santi v. Hot In Here, Inc., Judge Ramos approved the revised wage-claim settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice.
Christina Santi and the defendants—Hot In Here, Inc., Vlad Lyubovny, and Lataya Edwards—were affected by the court’s approval of the revised settlement and dismissal of the case with prejudice.
What happened
In Santi v. Hot In Here, Inc., the parties asked the court to approve a settlement resolving Christina Santi’s claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage law. The court had previously declined to approve an earlier agreement without prejudice because of concerns about the settlement amount, release, disparagement clause, future-employment restriction, and requested attorney’s fees.
The parties submitted a revised motion and agreement. They explained how the $70,000 settlement amount was determined, and the agreement provided that Santi would receive $26,201.75 for releasing the wage claims at issue, described as 100% of her possible economic damages. The revised agreement narrowed the release, removed the disparagement and future-employment provisions, and reduced the requested attorney’s fees to $8,733.92, or 24.4% of Santi’s wage-claim payment.
Judge Edgardo Ramos found that the revised agreement met the requirements of the governing precedent and approved it. The court dismissed the case with prejudice, directed the clerk to terminate the motion, and closed the case.
The detailed version
- Santi v. Hot In Here, Inc. · No. 1:18-cv-03028
- Edgardo Ramos
- Apr. 16, 2020
Background
The parties previously submitted an application for preliminary approval of a settlement. On November 21, 2019, the court declined to approve that agreement without prejudice. The court identified five problems: the parties had not adequately explained how the settlement amount was calculated; the release was too broad; the agreement included an impermissible disparagement clause; it barred Christina Santi from working for the defendants in the future; and the requested attorney’s fees exceeded 33% of the settlement amount.
Revised settlement
The parties responded with an amended motion and revised settlement agreement. They provided an explanation for the $70,000 total settlement. The agreement stated that Santi would receive $26,201.75 in exchange for releasing the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claims at issue in the litigation, representing 100% of her possible economic damages. The revised agreement released only those FLSA claims, and it did not include a disparagement clause or a restriction on future employment. Counsel reduced the requested attorney’s fees for the FLSA claim to $8,733.92, which represented 24.4% of Santi’s total FLSA-related payment.
Ruling
Judge Edgardo Ramos held that the revised settlement agreement complied with Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2015), and approved the agreement. The court dismissed the case with prejudice. It directed the clerk to terminate the motion at Doc. 71 and close the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.