Baten Rojas v. Pearl Diner, Inc.

Background

Edwin Ramiro Baten Rojas brought this wage-and-hour case individually and on behalf of others similarly situated against Pearl Diner, Inc. (doing business as Pearl Diner), James Coulianidis, Emanuel Coulianidis, Alexander Almonte, and Ruben Doe. The opinion describes the case as arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

The parties submitted a joint fairness letter and a fully signed settlement agreement for court approval. The court reviewed the proposed agreement under the standard requiring court approval of FLSA settlements.

Settlement Approval

The court stated that FLSA settlements are generally presumed fair and that courts are not as well positioned as the parties to assess the reasonableness of the agreement. After reviewing the fairness letter and settlement agreement, the court found that all settlement terms, including the allocation of attorney’s fees and costs, appeared fair and reasonable under the circumstances. The court therefore approved the settlement.

The court noted that approving the allocation of attorney’s fees and costs did not approve the hourly rate of the plaintiff’s counsel.

Disposition

Consistent with the settlement agreement, the action was dismissed with prejudice as to Pearl Diner. The plaintiff retained the right to restore the action within 90 days after all conditions in paragraph 1(a) of the agreement were fulfilled if Pearl Diner failed to pay the full settlement amount. The order also states that if the plaintiff did not reinstate the action within 120 days after those conditions were fulfilled, he would waive the right to reinstate it.

The order separately addressed James Coulianidis, Emanuel Coulianidis, Alexander Almonte, and Ruben Doe. The docket showed that they had been served but had not responded to the complaint. Judge Cott directed the plaintiff to file a letter by June 30, 2020, stating whether he would dismiss his claims against those defendants or seek a default judgment against them. The order did not resolve the merits of those claims.