Uguna Puchi v. Purchase & Wine Limited
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:20-cv-00312
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Uguna Puchi v. Purchase & Wine Limited, Judge Briccetti approved the parties’ wage-settlement agreement and ordered the case closed.
Milton Rodrigo Uguna Puchi, Purchase & Wine Limited, Wine at Five LLC, Cai Palmer, and their attorneys. The settlement was approved; the proposed dismissals were with prejudice as to Purchase & Wine Limited and Cai Palmer and without prejudice as to Wine at Five LLC.
What happened
In Uguna Puchi v. Purchase & Wine Limited, the plaintiff brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The parties submitted a settlement agreement and explained why they believed it was appropriate.
The court found the settlement fair, reasonable, and reached through arm’s-length negotiations without fraud or collusion. It also found the attorneys’ fees—about one-third of the total recovery before costs were reimbursed—fair and reasonable.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti approved the settlement. He said the court would order the proposed dismissals: with prejudice as to Purchase & Wine Limited and Cai Palmer, and without prejudice as to Wine at Five LLC. The clerk was instructed to close the case.
The detailed version
- Uguna Puchi v. Purchase & Wine Limited · No. 7:20-cv-00312
- Vincent Briccetti
- Nov. 2, 2020
Background
Milton Rodrigo Uguna Puchi brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law against Purchase & Wine Limited, Wine at Five LLC, and Cai Palmer. The parties filed a settlement agreement and an unopposed memorandum supporting the plaintiff’s request for approval. They also filed proposed stipulations—written agreements concerning dismissal—with prejudice as to Purchase & Wine Limited and Cai Palmer, and without prejudice as to Wine at Five LLC.
Court’s review
The court reviewed the parties’ positions about the value of the claims, the risks and costs of continued litigation, the plaintiff’s representation by counsel, the fact that the plaintiff no longer worked for the defendants, and the assistance of an experienced mediator. The court also noted that the agreement contained no confidentiality or non-disparagement clauses, provided the plaintiff 100% of his claimed FLSA overtime compensation and New York “spread of hours” compensation, and provided a significant portion of his claimed liquidated damages. The release was limited to wage-and-hour claims arising before the agreement was signed.
Ruling
The court found that the settlement agreement was fair and reasonable and resulted from arm’s-length negotiations, rather than fraud or collusion. It also found the attorneys’ fees, approximately one-third of the total recovery before reimbursement of costs, fair and reasonable under the circumstances. Judge Vincent L. Briccetti approved the settlement agreement, stated that the court would order the proposed dismissal stipulations, directed the clerk to terminate the motion, and instructed the clerk to close the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.