Rojas v. Three Decker Restaurant LTD
- Lewis Liman
- 1:19-cv-08592
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Rojas v. Three Decker Restaurant, Judge Liman approved the FLSA settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice.
Florinda Maria Rojas, the three defendants, and Rojas’s counsel were affected by the approved settlement. The case was dismissed with prejudice, and counsel received the approved portion for fees and costs.
What happened
Rojas v. Three Decker Restaurant involved Florinda Maria Rojas’s Fair Labor Standards Act claims against Three Decker Restaurant, Ltd., Athanasios Raftopoulos, and Ramiro Tecorral. The parties jointly asked the court to approve their settlement.
The settlement totaled $65,000: $43,334 for Rojas and $21,666 for her lawyer’s fees and costs. The court found the agreement fair because it avoided litigation expenses, addressed significant litigation risks, resulted from arm’s-length negotiations, and showed no evidence of fraud or collusion.
Judge Lewis J. Liman approved the settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice. The court also accepted the requested attorney-fee amount and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
The detailed version
- Rojas v. Three Decker Restaurant LTD · No. 1:19-cv-08592
- Lewis Liman
- June 15, 2020
Background
Florinda Maria Rojas brought this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law governing wages and working conditions, against Three Decker Restaurant, Ltd., Athanasios Raftopoulos, and Ramiro Tecorral. Rojas and the defendants jointly sought approval of their settlement.
Settlement Review
The court evaluated the settlement’s fairness using factors including Rojas’s possible recovery, the litigation expenses the agreement would avoid, the risks faced by the parties, whether the agreement resulted from arm’s-length negotiations between experienced counsel, and whether fraud or collusion was possible.
The parties agreed to a total settlement of $65,000. Rojas would receive two-thirds, or $43,334, and her counsel would receive one-third, or $21,666, for fees and costs. The parties represented that Rojas’s possible recovery was $18,000 to $35,000, excluding additional damages allowed under the statute. The settlement was reached early, after the exchange of documents but before formal discovery and motion practice. The defendants had taken the position, supported by evidence, that Rojas earned more than the applicable minimum wage, creating significant litigation risk for her.
The court found that the agreement resulted from arm’s-length negotiations and that there was no evidence of fraud or collusion. Although payments would be made over time in installments, Rojas would receive her share proportionally with her counsel.
Release and Confidentiality Terms
The release was limited to the claims involved in this action. The agreement contained no confidentiality provision. Its non-disparagement provision did not prevent Rojas from discussing her wage-and-hour claims, the settlement, or her experience litigating the case.
Attorney Fees
Counsel submitted contemporaneous time records and biographical information. The court reviewed the records and found the work performed and the hours billed reasonable and appropriate. The requested fee was one-third of the settlement and closely corresponded to counsel’s reported total fees and costs of $20,662, based on an attorney billing rate of $400 per hour and an assistant’s rate of $100 per hour.
Ruling
Judge Lewis J. Liman approved the settlement. The court dismissed the case with prejudice and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.