Ortiz Ortiz v. Abitino's Pizza 49th Street Corp.
- James Cott
- 1:19-cv-07380
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Ortiz Ortiz v. Abitino’s Pizza, Magistrate Judge Cott approved the parties’ Fair Labor Standards Act settlement and directed the Clerk to close the case.
Ricardo Ortiz Ortiz, Ariosto Fajardo, the other people they sought to represent, the defendants, and the parties’ counsel were affected by the settlement approval and closure of the case.
What happened
Ortiz Ortiz v. Abitino’s Pizza 49th Street Corp. is a wage-and-hour case brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act by Ricardo Ortiz Ortiz and Ariosto Fajardo, individually and for other similarly situated people.
The parties asked the court to approve their proposed settlement. They submitted a joint letter explaining why the settlement was fair, and the court also held a lengthy conference that led to the agreement. The opinion says the defendants’ financial situation during the COVID-19 pandemic supported finding the settlement reasonable because collecting damages could be difficult.
Magistrate Judge James L. Cott found that all settlement terms, including the allocation of attorney’s fees and costs, appeared fair and reasonable under the circumstances. He approved the settlement and directed the Clerk to close the case. The approval of attorney’s fees did not approve the hourly rate of the plaintiffs’ counsel.
The detailed version
- Ortiz Ortiz v. Abitino's Pizza 49th Street Corp. · No. 1:19-cv-07380
- James Cott
- Feb. 8, 2021
Background
Ricardo Ortiz Ortiz and Ariosto Fajardo brought this wage-and-hour case individually and on behalf of others similarly situated. The opinion identifies the claims as arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The parties consented to the jurisdiction of Magistrate Judge James L. Cott under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
The parties submitted a joint fairness letter and a proposed settlement agreement for court approval. The court reviewed those materials and participated in a lengthy conference that led to the settlement.
Court’s Analysis
The court reviewed the proposed settlement under the standard requiring approval of Fair Labor Standards Act settlements. It noted the general presumption that such settlements are fair and considered the circumstances described by the parties. In particular, the court stated that the defendants’ financial situation during the COVID-19 pandemic created potential difficulty in collecting damages, which supported finding the settlement reasonable.
The court found that all terms of the proposed settlement, including the allocation of attorney’s fees and costs, appeared fair and reasonable under the totality of the circumstances and the factors identified in the cited authority. The court also directed the parties to correct drafting errors in the proposed agreement, including references to the plaintiffs as if there were only one plaintiff and incorrect verb tenses. The court stated that its approval of the attorney’s-fee allocation did not approve the hourly rate of the plaintiffs’ counsel.
Disposition
Judge Cott approved the proposed settlement. The Clerk was directed to close the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.