Larios v. Tampopo LLC

Background

Nazareno Larios sued Tampopo LLC, doing business as Tampopo Ramen, Joshua Frank, and Nanae Mameuda-Frank under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law. He alleged that the defendants failed to pay overtime and other wages, failed to pay the required minimum wage, failed to pay spread-of-hours premiums, and violated wage-notice, recordkeeping, and wage-statement requirements.

According to the complaint, the defendants hired Larios in February 2017 as a food delivery worker, porter, and stock person. He allegedly worked six days per week and more than 40 hours per week. The complaint alleged that he was paid different hourly rates during the employment period, did not receive overtime pay, was paid in cash, did not receive tips after becoming a cook/server in May 2017, and did not receive wage statements. It also alleged that the defendants did not maintain accurate time and pay records.

Larios filed the complaint on November 14, 2019. Although the complaint indicated an intention to pursue a collective action, the parties settled before any motion for conditional certification was filed.

Settlement-Approval Standard

The parties asked the court to approve their settlement under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. The court explained that FLSA settlements that dismiss claims with prejudice require approval by the court or the Department of Labor. The court evaluates whether the settlement is fair and reasonable by considering factors including the plaintiff’s possible recovery, the burdens and expenses avoided through settlement, litigation risks, whether the agreement resulted from arm’s-length negotiations, and the possibility of fraud or collusion.

Court’s Analysis

Larios estimated his recovery under the FLSA and New York Labor Law at approximately $22,400, consisting of $6,200 in unpaid wages, $10,000 in statutory damages, and $6,200 in liquidated damages. The proposed settlement totaled $20,000. Larios would receive $12,960.65, while his counsel would receive $7,039.35 in fees and costs. The court found the recovery reasonable given the risks of continuing the litigation.

The court also found that settlement would avoid the burdens and expense of preparing for trial and that the parties’ filings showed significant disputes and litigation risks. The parties represented that they engaged in extensive negotiations, including mediation through the court-annexed mediation program, and the record contained no evidence of fraud or collusion.

The court found the release appropriately limited to claims based on Larios’s employment through the date the agreement was executed and to wage-and-hour issues. The agreement contained no confidentiality provision and no non-disparagement provision. The court also found the $7,039.35 award for attorney’s fees and costs reasonable. That amount included $560 in expenses and one-third of the settlement, and it was less than counsel’s stated lodestar supported by billing records.

Disposition

The court approved the parties’ proposed settlement agreement as fair and reasonable. The opinion does not state that the court decided the underlying wage claims after a trial or on summary judgment; it approved the parties’ negotiated resolution under the FLSA settlement-approval standard.