Hernandez v. 120 East 56th Street Rest. Corp.
- Robert Lehrburger
- 1:19-cv-08121
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Hernandez v. 120 East 56th Street Rest. Corp., Judge Lehrburger approved the parties’ fair and reasonable wage-law settlement and closed the case.
The plaintiffs and defendants in the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law damages case; the approved settlement resolved the case and led to its closure.
What happened
Hernandez v. 120 East 56th Street Rest. Corp. was a damages case under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The plaintiffs and defendants jointly asked the court to approve their settlement.
The court reviewed the agreement and the parties’ letter, considering the risks and costs of continuing the case, possible recovery, attorney’s fees, the parties’ negotiations, and potential fraud or collusion. The agreement had no confidentiality restrictions, included reasonable attorney’s fees, and contained a mutual general release with exceptions.
Judge Lehrburger found the settlement fair and reasonable and approved it. He directed the Clerk of Court to terminate all motions and deadlines and close the case.
The detailed version
- Hernandez v. 120 East 56th Street Rest. Corp. · No. 1:19-cv-08121
- Robert Lehrburger
- June 17, 2020
Background
Humberto Hernandez and other plaintiffs brought an action for damages against 120 East 56th Street Rest. Corp., doing business as Montebello Ristorante Italiano, and other defendants. The claims arose under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage-and-hour law, and the New York Labor Law. The parties submitted a joint request for approval of a fully executed settlement agreement.
Court’s Review
The court explained that a federal court must determine whether an agreement settling a Fair Labor Standards Act case is fair and reasonable and results from arm’s-length negotiations rather than employer overreaching. The court had helped mediate the case and reviewed the settlement agreement and the parties’ letter.
In reviewing the agreement, the court considered the case’s prior proceedings; the risks, burdens, and costs of continuing the litigation; the possible range of recovery; whether the agreement resulted from arm’s-length bargaining involving experienced counsel or the parties; attorney’s fees; and the possibility of fraud or collusion. The court noted that the agreement contained no confidentiality restrictions, that the attorney’s fees were within a fair and reasonable range, and that the mutual general release had appropriate exceptions and was fair in the circumstances.
Ruling
Robert W. Lehrburger found the settlement agreement fair and reasonable and approved it. The court requested that the Clerk of Court terminate all motions and deadlines and close the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.