Bautista v. Venture 2275 LLC

Background

The court reviewed a joint request by Francisco Bautista and the defendants to approve a settlement under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law. The defendants identified in the order were Venture 2275 LLC and Andy Nisthalal, sued as Anthony Nisthalal. The agreement required the defendants to pay $57,500 to settle the action. It allocated $25,857.17 to Bautista’s attorneys for fees and expenses and $31,642.84 to Bautista.

The agreement included a mutual general release. The court found that release fair and reasonable, particularly because Bautista was no longer employed by the defendants. The agreement did not include a confidentiality clause or another contractual restriction on the parties’ ability to speak about the case or settlement.

Court’s analysis

The court found the overall settlement consideration fair and reasonable because significant factual disputes remained, including a sharp dispute about Bautista’s actual work hours. Resolving those disputes would require difficult credibility determinations and could result in findings that some parties or affiliated witnesses were untruthful at depositions. Both sides therefore faced substantial litigation risk if the case continued.

The court did not approve the proposed combined fee and expense award of $25,857.17. The parties’ joint letter indicated that counsel sought one-third of the gross recovery as a fee, or $19,166.67, plus $6,690.50 in out-of-pocket expenses. The court found the one-third fee fair and reasonable, noting that it was consistent with awards commonly approved in the district, within counsel’s documented $23,470 lodestar, and supported by counsel’s reasonable result despite evidentiary and credibility challenges.

The court rejected the additional expense request because counsel provided no expense records, such as invoices, receipts, or other documentation. The court took judicial notice of the $400 filing fee but would not approve the remaining undocumented expenses. Because the court had previously directed the plaintiff to support fee and cost requests with appropriate records, it also concluded that allowing a supplemental expense submission would be inappropriate.

Disposition

The court denied without prejudice the application to approve the settlement agreement. It permitted a renewed motion limiting the aggregate fees and expenses awarded to plaintiff’s counsel to $19,566.67—the $19,166.67 one-third fee plus the $400 filing fee—with the balance going to Bautista. Any renewed motion was due by September 2, 2020, and could be made by letter stating that the parties agreed to cap the aggregate fee and expense award at that amount.