Lindo v. AVR Realty Company, LLC
- Judith McCarthy
- 7:19-cv-05511
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Lindo v. AVR Realty Company, LLC, Judge McCarthy approved the FLSA settlement, including counsel fees, and dismissed the action with prejudice.
Rolando Lindo, the other persons on whose behalf he brought the wage claims, the named defendants, and plaintiff’s counsel whose fees were approved as part of the settlement.
What happened
In Lindo v. AVR Realty Company, LLC, Rolando Lindo brought wage claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York law on behalf of himself and others similarly situated. The defendants denied the allegations.
The parties submitted a revised settlement agreement for court review. After requiring changes to its non-disparagement clause, the court found that the agreement resulted from arm’s-length negotiations and fairly resolved the case, including the requested attorney fees.
Judge McCarthy approved the settlement and dismissed the action with prejudice. The Clerk was directed to close the case.
The detailed version
- Lindo v. AVR Realty Company, LLC · No. 7:19-cv-05511
- Judith McCarthy
- July 1, 2020
Background
Rolando Lindo sued AVR Realty Company, LLC; AVR-HH, LLC; Allan V. Rose; John Does 1–50; and Business Entities A–J. He brought the action for himself and others similarly situated, seeking unpaid wages and liquidated damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law, as well as damages under New York City spread-of-hours regulations. The defendants denied the allegations.
The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff submitted a settlement agreement, supporting letters and declarations, attorney time records, and a retainer agreement. After a June 12, 2020 conference, the court ordered the parties to revise the agreement’s non-disparagement clause. Plaintiff then submitted a revised settlement agreement.
Court’s Analysis
The court applied the standard that an FLSA settlement must be a fair and reasonable compromise of disputed issues rather than an employer’s improper waiver of statutory rights. The court considered the revised agreement, the supporting submissions, and the documentation concerning attorney fees and costs. It found that the settlement resulted from arm’s-length negotiations between able counsel and that its terms, including approval of plaintiff’s counsel’s fees, fairly and reasonably resolved the case.
Disposition
The court approved the settlement and dismissed the action with prejudice. The Clerk was respectfully requested to close the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.