Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 26, 2021

Bonaventura v. Gear Fitness One NY Plaza LLC

Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Docket
1:17-cv-02168
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
FlsaEmploymentCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Bonaventura v. Gear Fitness One NY Plaza LLC, Judge Ramos approved a revised wage-and-hour settlement awarding Bonaventura $200,000 and counsel $100,000.

Who this affects

Ben Bonaventura receives $200,000 under the approved settlement, and his current and prior counsel receive $100,000. The defendants are affected by the settlement’s approval, and the case was closed.

What happened

In Bonaventura v. Gear Fitness One NY Plaza LLC, Ben Bonaventura brought contract, Fair Labor Standards Act, and New York Labor Law claims. The court had previously declined to approve the parties’ first settlement because of concerns about a reemployment ban, a non-disparagement provision, and unsupported attorney-fee documentation.

The revised agreement removed the reemployment ban, allowed truthful statements about the wage-and-hour claims, and included documentation supporting the fees. It awarded Bonaventura $200,000 and his current and prior counsel $100,000, including litigation costs. The court found the payment to Bonaventura fair because it exceeded his alleged unpaid wages of approximately $170,240, and found the attorney-fee award reasonable.

Judge Edgardo Ramos granted the parties’ request to approve the revised agreement and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. The opinion does not state that the court separately decided the underlying wage-and-hour claims.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Bonaventura v. Gear Fitness One NY Plaza LLC · No. 1:17-cv-02168
Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Date
Apr. 26, 2021

Background

Ben Bonaventura asserted contract-based claims and claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The parties first asked the court to approve a settlement, but the court declined that request without prejudice. The court identified three problems: the agreement barred Bonaventura from being reemployed by the defendants; its non-disparagement provision barred truthful statements about his wage-and-hour claims; and Bonaventura’s counsel had not provided evidence supporting the proposed attorney-fee award.

The parties submitted a Revised Agreement and an amended fairness letter. The revised agreement removed the reemployment restriction, added an exception allowing Bonaventura to make truthful statements relating to the wage-and-hour claims and defenses, and included documentation supporting the proposed fees.

Settlement Terms

The Revised Agreement awarded Bonaventura $200,000 and awarded his current and prior counsel $100,000, including $5,992.66 attributed to litigation costs. Bonaventura alleged that he was owed approximately $170,240 in unpaid wages. Because the amount awarded to him exceeded his alleged unpaid wages, the court found that portion of the settlement fair and reasonable.

The court independently reviewed the attorney-fee request, as required in Fair Labor Standards Act cases. Counsel’s fee award was $94,007.34, representing 32 percent of the total settlement after costs. The court also used the lodestar method as a cross-check. A lodestar is the reasonable hourly rate multiplied by the reasonable number of hours worked. Even using an assumed hourly rate of $250 and only the hours worked by current counsel, the court calculated a lodestar of $97,375. The proposed fee represented a multiplier of 0.97, which the court found reasonable.

Ruling and Disposition

The court concluded that the Revised Agreement otherwise represented a fair and reasonable settlement. Judge Edgardo Ramos GRANTED the parties’ request for approval of the Revised Agreement and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. The opinion approved the settlement; it does not state that the court adjudicated the underlying wage-and-hour claims on their merits.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.