Barbecho v. Doe
- Laura Swain
- 1:15-cv-00170
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
In Barbecho v. Matrat LLC, Judge Swain ordered $660,000 under a settlement, denied a statutory increase, and denied fees without prejudice.
Fernando Barbecho, the settlement-class members, and the defendants—Matrat LLC, Shayan Holding Corp., Tas Bakery Inc., RRCTG, Inc., and Tareq Ahmed—were affected. The defendants were ordered to pay the remaining $660,000 plus statutory post-judgment interest; the fee request was left open for a properly supported motion.
What happened
In Fernando Barbecho v. Matrat LLC d/b/a Guy & Gallard et al., employees alleged that the defendants failed to pay required wages and overtime under federal and New York law. The parties settled for a $900,000 fund, but the defendants paid only $240,000 and made no further payments, according to the plaintiff’s later status update.
The settlement required 45 monthly payments of $20,000 and allowed the plaintiff to seek judgment for the unpaid balance after a default and an opportunity to cure. The court had retained authority to enforce the settlement. Barbecho asked the court to enter judgment for the remaining amount and award $2,150 in attorneys’ fees.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain granted the enforcement motion in part and denied it in part. She entered judgment for $660,000 plus statutory post-judgment interest, denied the requested 15-percent increase under New York Labor Law, and denied the attorneys’ fees request without prejudice, allowing a properly supported fee motion within 14 days.
The detailed version
- Barbecho v. Doe · No. 1:15-cv-00170
- Laura Swain
- Aug. 30, 2021
Background
Fernando Barbecho brought a collective and class action for himself and other employees against Matrat LLC, Shayan Holding Corp., Tas Bakery Inc., RRCTG, Inc., and Tareq Ahmed. He alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law based on unpaid wages and overtime compensation.
The parties reached a settlement in principle in 2015. Their revised settlement agreement, executed on April 6, 2016, required the defendants to create a $900,000 gross settlement fund. The court later certified the collective and class for settlement purposes and granted final approval of the agreement on May 4, 2017, finding it fair, reasonable, adequate, and binding. The final approval order expressly retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement and oversee distribution of the settlement funds.
Motion to Enforce the Settlement
The court treated the enforcement request as a breach-of-contract matter under state law. It found that the parties entered into an enforceable agreement and that Barbecho and the settlement-class members performed their obligations by releasing their claims.
The agreement required 45 equal monthly payments of $20,000, with the settlement fund to be fully paid by September 2018. Barbecho stated that the defendants had paid only $240,000 of the $900,000 fund. He also stated that he sent a notice of default on April 22, 2019, and that the defendants did not cure the default. The court found that the defendants breached the agreement and that $660,000 remained unpaid.
The court rejected Barbecho’s request to include a 15-percent automatic increase under Section 198(4) of the New York Labor Law if the judgment remained unpaid for 90 days. It explained that this enforcement proceeding was based on breach of the settlement agreement, not on a judgment based on a New York Labor Law claim, so the statutory increase did not apply.
Attorneys’ Fees
The settlement agreement allowed recovery of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in enforcing it. Barbecho requested $2,150: $1,600 for two hours of attorney work at $800 per hour and $550 for two hours of paralegal work at $275 per hour.
The court denied the fee request because counsel did not provide contemporaneous billing records showing the dates, hours, and nature of the work. Counsel instead submitted an affidavit estimating the time spent, and the submission provided no information about the paralegal’s time and efforts. The court denied the request without prejudice to refiling a fee motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d), with appropriate supporting information, within 14 days after entry of judgment.
Disposition
The court granted in part and denied in part Barbecho’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement. It directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment in Barbecho’s favor for $660,000, plus post-judgment interest at the statutory rate. It denied the request for the New York Labor Law payment increase and denied the attorneys’ fees request without prejudice. The order resolved docket entry no. 48.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.