Franco Perez v. Super Gourmet Food Corp.
- Alvin Hellerstein
- 1:16-cv-04375
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Franco Perez v. Super Gourmet Food Corp., Judge Hellerstein approved a wage-case settlement, attorney fees, and expenses, subject to an allocation plan and dismissal filing.
The five plaintiffs, the defendant company, the individual principals who were also sued, and the plaintiffs' lawyers were affected. The plaintiffs would receive the net settlement after the approved fees and expenses, subject to an allocation plan; the defendants would pay $104,000; and the lawyers would receive $35,076.67.
What happened
In Franco Perez v. Super Gourmet Food Corp., five plaintiffs sued over alleged unpaid overtime and minimum wages under New York and federal law. The parties demanded $814,295.53 but agreed to settle for $104,000.
The court found the settlement fair, adequate, and reasonable because the restaurant had been out of business for more than five years and the individual defendants had shown they could not pay substantially more. After $35,076.67 in legal fees and expenses, $68,923.33 would be divided among the five plaintiffs.
Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein approved the settlement and the requested fees and expenses, but required the plaintiffs to submit an allocation plan within three days and file a dismissal stipulation. The case would close after the court approved that filing, while the court would retain authority to enforce the settlement if needed.
The detailed version
- Franco Perez v. Super Gourmet Food Corp. · No. 1:16-cv-04375
- Alvin Hellerstein
- Apr. 16, 2021
Background
The case concerned claims by five plaintiffs for overtime and minimum wages under New York and federal law. The amount demanded was $814,295.53. The parties submitted a settlement for court review after the court's February 12, 2021 order.
The settlement required defendants to pay $104,000. After deducting $35,076.67 for attorneys' fees and expenses, $68,923.33 remained for allocation among the five plaintiffs. The opinion states that the defendant company was a restaurant that had been out of business for more than five years. It also states that the individual principals were effectively unable to pay a larger judgment, supported that position with financial documents, and likely would have sought bankruptcy protection if the case continued.
Court's Analysis
The court approved the settlement as fair, adequate, and reasonable. It found that the agreement reflected a reasonable compromise of disputed issues and resulted from arm's-length bargaining between experienced counsel. Given defendants' financial condition, the court concluded that the settlement represented the best result that could reasonably have been obtained.
The plaintiffs' lawyers recorded $44,207 in time through contemporaneous billing records. They requested $35,076.67, described as one-third of the settlement and inclusive of expenses. The court approved that amount as fair and reasonable, citing the importance of properly incentivizing counsel to bring wage-and-hour cases.
Disposition
Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein approved the settlement and approved attorneys' fees and expenses of $35,076.67. Because the plaintiffs had not yet submitted a plan for dividing the settlement, the approval was conditioned on their submitting an allocation plan within three days and obtaining the court's approval of that plan.
The plaintiffs were also ordered to file a stipulation of dismissal promptly and at the same time as the allocation plan. The Clerk of Court was ordered to close the case after the plaintiffs filed the stipulation and the judge approved it. The court stated that it would retain jurisdiction if needed to enforce the settlement agreement.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.