Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 1, 2021

Miguel v. D & G Auto Repair, Inc.

Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Docket
7:21-cv-02663
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
FlsaEmploymentCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Miguel v. D & G Auto Repair, Judge Briccetti approved the parties’ wage settlement and dismissed the case.

Who this affects

Porfirio Miguel, D & G Auto Repair, Inc., and Glenn Pantore were affected by the approved wage-and-hour settlement and dismissal of the case.

What happened

Miguel v. D & G Auto Repair, Inc. involved claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The parties asked the court to approve their settlement agreement.

The court found the agreement fair, reasonable, and reached through direct negotiations without fraud or collusion. Defendants agreed to pay slightly more than twice the plaintiff’s claimed $5,590.50 in unpaid wages, and the court also approved attorneys’ fees equal to one-third of the total recovery after costs.

Judge Briccetti approved the settlement agreement, dismissed the case, and directed the Clerk to close it.

The detailed version

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

Case
Miguel v. D & G Auto Repair, Inc. · No. 7:21-cv-02663
Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Date
Oct. 1, 2021

Background

Porfirio Miguel brought claims against D & G Auto Repair, Inc. and Glenn Pantore under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law. On August 21, 2021, the parties filed a settlement agreement and a joint request for court approval.

Settlement Review

The court reviewed factors including the parties’ valuation of the claims, the risks and costs of continued litigation, and the fact that Miguel was represented by counsel. The agreement did not include confidentiality or non-disparagement provisions. Defendants agreed to pay slightly more than double Miguel’s claimed unpaid wages of $5,590.50, consisting of $120 in unpaid minimum wages and $5,470.50 in unpaid overtime wages.

The court noted a genuine dispute about liquidated damages and the number of hours Miguel worked during the relevant period. The parties also wanted to resolve the case early and avoid the costs and uncertainty of continued litigation. The release in the agreement was limited to wage-and-hour claims existing when the agreement was signed.

The court found the settlement fair and reasonable and the result of arm’s-length negotiations, rather than fraud or collusion. It also found that attorneys’ fees equal to one-third of the total recovery after costs were fair and reasonable under the circumstances.

Ruling

Judge Vincent L. Briccetti approved the parties’ settlement agreement, dismissed the case, and instructed the Clerk to close the case. The order did not state whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.