Quic v. Uncle Mario's Brick Oven Pizza LLC

Background

Oseas Quic, Carlos Chicoj Mejia, Javier Hernandez, Ruben Gonzalez Cruz, and Luis Ronaldo Suy Ignacio brought claims against Uncle Mario’s Brick Oven Pizza LLC, Domenico Abitino, and David Cortez under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law. After the parties negotiated through the Southern District of New York’s mediation program, they asked the court to approve their settlement agreement.

Settlement amount

The agreement required the defendants to pay the plaintiffs a total of $22,500. Of that amount, $7,500 was reserved for attorneys’ fees and costs. The plaintiffs alleged that they were owed approximately $18,234 in back wages and could have recovered approximately $83,020.82 for actual damages, penalties, and interest if they prevailed fully, excluding attorneys’ fees and costs.

The court found the settlement amount fair and reasonable after considering the plaintiffs’ litigation risks. Their recovery would have depended on proving that the defendants’ time records and wage statements were inaccurate. The plaintiffs’ counsel also represented that the settlement was an excellent result given the defendants’ strained business position during the COVID-19 pandemic, which could have made collecting a judgment difficult.

Attorneys’ fees

The court independently reviewed counsel’s time records and approved $7,500 in fees and costs. That amount was one-third of the settlement, below the 40 percent fee in the plaintiffs’ original retainer agreement and below counsel’s recorded fees. The court concluded that the requested amount was reasonable.

Release of claims

The agreement released the defendants only from claims specifically related to this litigation, including claims under the FLSA, the New York Labor Law, the New York Minimum Wage Act, and the Hospitality Wage Order of the New York Commissioner of Labor. The court found that the release was limited to the wage-and-hour issues asserted in the action or related claims that could have been asserted, rather than covering unrelated or unknown claims.

Non-disparagement provision

The agreement did not include a confidentiality provision. It did include a non-disparagement clause preventing the parties from making statements or disclosures that would negatively comment on, disparage, or call into question the other side’s business operations, policies, or conduct. The clause allowed the plaintiffs to make truthful statements about their experiences litigating the action. The court found that this carve-out made the provision fair and reasonable.

Disposition

Judge Ronnie Abrams approved the settlement agreement and dismissed the action with prejudice pursuant to the plaintiffs’ letter and the settlement agreement. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case. The opinion resolved the settlement-approval request and did not decide whether the plaintiffs would have prevailed on the underlying wage claims.