Orlando, Jr v. Liberty Ashes, Inc.
- Richard Sullivan
- 1:15-cv-09434
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Orlando, Jr. v. Liberty Ashes, Inc., Judge Sullivan approved the parties’ settlement and related attorney’s fees.
The approved settlement affects Carl Orlando, Jr., the other plaintiffs represented as similarly situated, Liberty Ashes, Inc., and the other defendants. The ruling also approves the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs and allows the court to enforce the settlement agreement.
What happened
In Orlando, Jr. v. Liberty Ashes, Inc., the court held a hearing on September 4, 2020, to review a proposed settlement in the case brought by Carl Orlando, Jr., on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, against Liberty Ashes, Inc., and others.
The court found that the settlement was fair and reasonable, considering the plaintiffs’ possible recovery, the risks of continued litigation, and the possibility that the plaintiffs could be found exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act’s motor-carrier exemption. The court also found no likely fraud or collusion because the agreement resulted from arm’s-length bargaining before a labor and employment arbitrator.
Judge Richard J. Sullivan approved the settlement and found attorney’s fees equal to one-third of the settlement’s value, plus costs, fair and reasonable. The court kept jurisdiction to enforce the agreement and directed the clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- Orlando, Jr v. Liberty Ashes, Inc. · No. 1:15-cv-09434
- Richard Sullivan
- Sept. 4, 2020
Background
The plaintiffs were Carl Orlando, Jr., acting on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, and the defendants included Liberty Ashes, Inc. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims in detail. It states that the litigation involved a risk that the plaintiffs could be deemed exempt under the Motor Carrier Exemption to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Settlement Review
The court held a fairness hearing on the proposed settlement. It evaluated the agreement under the requirement that settlements in this context be fair and reasonable. The court considered the plaintiffs’ range of possible recovery, the seriousness of the litigation risks, and the fact that the settlement resulted from arm’s-length bargaining before a labor and employment arbitrator. The court also found no likelihood of fraud or collusion.
Attorney’s Fees
The court found that attorney’s fees equal to one-third of the settlement’s value, plus costs, were fair and reasonable.
Ruling
The court ordered that the settlement be approved. It retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement and directed the clerk to close the case. The opinion does not provide the settlement amount or other specific settlement terms.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.