Macancela v. Port Drago Corp.
- James Cott
- 1:19-cv-05856
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Macancela v. Port Drago Corp., Judge Cott approved the parties’ proposed Fair Labor Standards Act settlement and ordered them to submit a dismissal stipulation.
Eduardo Macancela, the other similarly situated workers he represented, Port Drago Corp., and Charles Drago.
What happened
In Macancela v. Port Drago Corp., Eduardo Macancela brought a wage-and-hour case for himself and others similarly situated against Port Drago Corp. and Charles Drago. The parties agreed to settle and submitted the agreement and a joint letter asking the court to approve it.
The court reviewed the settlement, including the payment of attorneys’ fees and costs. It considered the circumstances of the case, including the defendants’ financial situation during the COVID-19 pandemic and the possible difficulty of collecting damages through a judgment.
Judge James L. Cott found that all settlement terms appeared fair and reasonable and approved the proposed settlement. He directed the parties to file a signed stipulation and order of dismissal with prejudice by September 29, 2020; otherwise, the Clerk would be directed to close the case.
The detailed version
- Macancela v. Port Drago Corp. · No. 1:19-cv-05856
- James Cott
- Sept. 15, 2020
Background
Eduardo Macancela sued Port Drago Corp. and Charles Drago in a wage-and-hour case brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, or FLSA. He brought the case on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated. The parties consented to the jurisdiction of James L. Cott, a United States 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 explained that FLSA settlements are generally subject to court review and that courts usually presume such settlements are fair because the parties are generally better positioned to assess the settlement’s reasonableness. The court also considered the defendants’ financial situation during the COVID-19 pandemic and the possible difficulty of collecting damages through a judgment.
Ruling
After reviewing the parties’ letter and settlement agreement, the court found that all proposed terms—including the allocation of attorneys’ fees and costs—appeared fair and reasonable under the circumstances. The court therefore approved the proposed settlement.
The parties were directed to file a fully signed stipulation and order of dismissal with prejudice no later than September 29, 2020. The order stated that, if they did not do so, the court would direct the Clerk to close the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.