Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 1, 2020

Medina v. 163 Ashley Deli Grocery

Judge
Barbara Moses
Docket
1:19-cv-11443
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
EmploymentCivil ProcedureFee Petition
In one sentence

In Medina v. 163 Ashley Deli Grocery, Judge Moses approved the settlement, dismissed the action with prejudice, and retained limited enforcement jurisdiction.

Who this affects

Jose Medina, 163 Ashley Deli Grocery, Inc., Jorge A. Martinez, and Medina’s attorneys are affected by the approved settlement, dismissal, payment obligations, releases, and limited continuing jurisdiction.

What happened

In Medina v. 163 Ashley Deli Grocery, Jose Medina and the defendants asked the court to approve their settlement of Medina’s wage-and-hour claims under federal and state law. The agreement required 163 Ashley Deli Grocery, Inc. and Jorge A. Martinez to pay $45,000.

Medina would receive $30,000, and his attorneys would receive $15,000 for fees and costs. The court found the settlement fair based on the parties’ estimated recovery range, the settlement negotiations, and the defendants’ stated inability to pay more during the COVID-19 pandemic. The court also found the releases and fee award reasonable.

Judge Barbara Moses approved the settlement, dismissed the action with prejudice and without costs, and retained jurisdiction only to enforce the agreement. The clerk was directed to close the case.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Medina v. 163 Ashley Deli Grocery · No. 1:19-cv-11443
Judge
Barbara Moses
Date
May 1, 2020

Background

Jose Medina sued 163 Ashley Deli Grocery, Inc. and Jorge A. Martinez over claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the federal wage-and-hour law, and state law. After private settlement negotiations and a court settlement conference, the parties jointly asked the court to approve their settlement under the requirement that courts review FLSA settlements for fairness and reasonableness. The parties had consented to the magistrate judge’s jurisdiction.

Settlement Terms

The agreement required the defendants to pay $45,000. Medina would receive $30,000 in full settlement of his employment-related claims. His attorneys, Valletti & Associates, LLC, would receive $15,000 for fees and costs. The payments would be made in two installments: $22,500 to Medina 30 days after approval, followed 60 days after approval by $7,500 to Medina and $15,000 to his counsel.

The parties estimated that Medina’s possible recovery on his wage-and-hour claims ranged from $16,126.40, according to the defendants, to $67,909.00, according to Medina, excluding liquidated damages and an alleged wage-statement violation. The court considered those estimates and the defendants’ stated inability to pay more, including the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic and related public-health measures, and found the settlement consideration fair.

Releases and Attorneys’ Fees

The agreement contained mutual releases. The court interpreted Medina’s release as covering only claims arising from alleged acts concerning his employment, because that specific language limited broader language elsewhere in the release. The defendants’ release of claims against Medina was broader. The court found the releases and the other non-economic terms fair, noting that the agreement did not contain a confidentiality clause.

The court also found the $15,000 fee-and-cost award reasonable. The award represented one-third of the gross settlement. It included $554.60 for filing fees and other out-of-pocket costs and $14,445.40 in attorneys’ fees. The court reviewed counsel’s time records, which showed a lodestar—the value of the time worked at the attorneys’ hourly rates—of $15,470.00.

Ruling

Judge Barbara Moses found the agreement fair and reasonable and approved the parties’ settlement. The court dismissed this action with prejudice and without costs. It retained jurisdiction for the limited purpose of enforcing the agreement and directed the clerk to close the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.