Clemente v. S & W Supermarket Inc.
- James Cott
- 1:19-cv-09426
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Clemente v. S&W Supermarket, Judge Cott approved the parties’ wage settlement but noted its payment schedule was $2,000 short.
The settlement approval affected plaintiffs Gustavo Clemente and Celso Asque and defendants S&W Supermarket, Inc. and the other defendants. It approved their negotiated resolution, subject to filing a dismissal order with prejudice, and alerted them to a $2,000 discrepancy between the stated settlement amount and the listed installment payments.
What happened
Gustavo Clemente and Celso Asque sued S&W Supermarket, Inc. and others in a wage-and-hour case under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The parties agreed to settle after mediation and asked Judge James L. Cott to approve their agreement.
The parties’ letter and agreement described a $31,000 settlement, including costs and attorneys’ fees. But the court calculated that the installment payments listed in the agreement totaled only $29,000. The agreement also referred to each plaintiff as “her” instead of “his.”
Judge James L. Cott found the settlement terms fair and reasonable and approved the proposed settlement. He directed the parties to file a signed dismissal agreement with prejudice by June 29, 2020, and told them to review and, if appropriate, revise the agreement to account for the full settlement amount.
The detailed version
- Clemente v. S & W Supermarket Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-09426
- James Cott
- June 15, 2020
Background
Gustavo Clemente and Celso Asque brought this wage-and-hour case against S&W Supermarket, Inc. and other defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The parties consented to Magistrate Judge James L. Cott’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). They submitted a joint letter explaining the settlement and a signed settlement agreement for court approval.
The court explained that settlements in Fair Labor Standards Act cases are generally presumed to be fair, while courts must still review their reasonableness. The parties had participated in mediation with a court-appointed mediator, and the settlement amount was consistent with the mediator’s recommendation. The plaintiffs also had serious concerns about collecting a judgment because of the defendants’ financial situation during the COVID-19 pandemic. The agreed payment schedule therefore supported approval of the settlement.
Settlement terms and discrepancy
The court reviewed the proposed settlement, including the allocation of attorneys’ fees and costs, under the relevant fairness factors. The parties’ cover letter and paragraph 3(a) of the agreement stated that the total settlement was $31,000, inclusive of costs and attorneys’ fees. The court calculated, however, that the installment payments listed in paragraph 3(c) totaled only $29,000. The court said the parties might want to review and, if appropriate, revise the agreement so that the entire stated settlement amount was accounted for. The court also noted that paragraph 2(e) referred to each plaintiff as “her” rather than “his.”
Ruling
Judge James L. Cott found that all terms of the proposed settlement, including attorneys’ fees and costs, appeared fair and reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. He approved the proposed settlement. The parties were directed to file a fully signed stipulation and order of dismissal with prejudice no later than June 29, 2020. The order did not itself state that the case was dismissed at that time; it said that otherwise the court would direct the Clerk to close the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.