Santiago v. Rosehill Housing Management Corp.
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:19-cv-10552
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Santiago v. Rosehill, Judge Ramos approved the parties’ revised Fair Labor Standards Act settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice.
Johnny Santiago and defendants Rosehill Management & Maintenance LLC, Claire Vasile, and Nayda Alejandro; the order approves their revised settlement, awards the requested attorney’s fees and costs as part of the settlement terms, and ends the case with prejudice.
What happened
In Santiago v. Rosehill Management & Maintenance LLC, the parties asked the court to approve a settlement under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The court had previously declined to approve their first agreement because it barred Santiago from future employment with the defendants and lacked documentation supporting the requested attorney’s fees.
The revised agreement removed the employment restriction and included counsel’s billing records. The parties requested $11,464 in attorney’s fees, plus $608 in costs, from a $35,000 settlement for Santiago; the opinion states that Santiago’s estimated unpaid wages totaled $40,000.
Judge Edgardo Ramos found the revised agreement and requested fees reasonable, approved the settlement, and dismissed the case with prejudice. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion and the case.
The detailed version
- Santiago v. Rosehill Housing Management Corp. · No. 1:19-cv-10552
- Edgardo Ramos
- May 29, 2020
Background
Johnny Santiago and the defendants—Rosehill Management & Maintenance LLC, Claire Vasile, and Nayda Alejandro—submitted an application for approval of a settlement. The court declined to approve the first application without prejudice because the agreement prohibited Santiago’s future employment by the defendants and because the parties had not provided documentation supporting the requested attorney’s fees.
The parties then submitted an amended motion with a revised settlement agreement and billing records. The revised agreement removed the future-employment restriction. The parties sought $11,464 in attorney’s fees, described as one-third of the settlement amount, plus $608 in costs. The revised billing information showed a lodestar—the fees calculated from the attorneys’ documented hours and rates—of $4,437.50 and a multiplier of 2.58. The settlement provided Santiago $35,000, while the opinion states that his estimated unpaid wages totaled $40,000.
Court’s Analysis
The court reviewed the billing records and the circumstances of the case. It found the requested attorney’s fees reasonable, noting that the multiplier was near 2 and that counsel had obtained a $35,000 settlement. The court concluded that the revised settlement agreement complied with the requirements discussed in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc.
Disposition
Judge Edgardo Ramos approved the revised settlement agreement. The court dismissed the case with prejudice and directed the clerk to terminate the motion identified as Doc. 26 and terminate the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.