Pareja v. 184 Food Corp.
- Stewart Aaron
- 1:18-cv-05887
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Pareja v. 184 Food, Judge Aaron approved the parties’ Fair Labor Standards Act settlement, conditioned on signing the agreement and filing dismissal papers.
Jose Pareja, the Settling Defendants—0113 Food Corp., Giovanni Marte, Gustavo Marte, and Jose Marte—and the proposed settlement of Pareja’s Fair Labor Standards Act claims.
What happened
Jose Pareja brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act against 184 Food Corp. and others. Plaintiff and 0113 Food Corp., Giovanni Marte, Gustavo Marte, and Jose Marte submitted a proposed settlement agreement.
The court found the proposed settlement fair and reasonable. It approved the settlement only on the condition that the agreement be signed and fully executed.
No later than December 18, 2020, the parties were required to file a stipulation of dismissal attaching the completed agreement. Judge Stewart D. Aaron stated that approving the settlement did not endorse several of the plaintiff’s attorneys’ hourly rates, which the court had found excessive.
The detailed version
- Pareja v. 184 Food Corp. · No. 1:18-cv-05887
- Stewart Aaron
- Nov. 18, 2020
Background
Jose Pareja brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The opinion states that the case was brought by Pareja individually and on behalf of others similarly situated. On November 17, 2020, Pareja and the defendants identified as 0113 Food Corp., Giovanni Marte, Gustavo Marte, and Jose Marte—the “Settling Defendants”—submitted a proposed settlement agreement.
Ruling
The court reviewed the proposed settlement and found it fair and reasonable under the standard requiring judicial review of certain Fair Labor Standards Act settlements. The court approved the settlement on the condition that the settlement agreement be signed and fully executed.
The court ordered Pareja and the Settling Defendants to file a stipulation of dismissal, with the fully executed settlement agreement attached, no later than December 18, 2020. The opinion does not state that this filing had already occurred.
Attorney Fees
The court stated that its approval did not endorse the hourly rates of several of Pareja’s attorneys, which the court had found excessive in other decisions. It nevertheless found the settlement fair and reasonable because the fee award was well below even a significantly reduced lodestar, meaning a fee calculation based primarily on reasonable hours multiplied by reasonable hourly rates.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.