Navarrete v. Crystal Deli Inc.
- Jesse Furman
- 1:20-cv-06775
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Navarrete v. Crystal Deli, Judge Furman approved the FLSA settlement, addressed attorney fees, and dismissed the case with prejudice.
Miguel Navarrete, Crystal Deli Inc. and the other defendants, and Navarrete’s attorney. The settlement was approved, the case was dismissed with prejudice, and any modification of the settlement requires court approval.
What happened
In Navarrete v. Crystal Deli Inc., Miguel Navarrete and the defendants told the court they had reached a settlement in a wage case brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The court reviewed the parties’ explanation of the agreement and found the settlement fair and reasonable considering Navarrete’s individual claim and the risks and costs of further litigation.
The court also considered Navarrete’s request for $22,224.80 in attorney’s fees and costs. Although the requested fee was high compared with the claimed amount and recovery, the court found no reason to reduce it because there were no additional plaintiffs who had joined the case, the case was not a collective action, and the fee was based on an agreement between Navarrete and his attorney. The court stated that a fee equal to one-third of the recovery was appropriate.
Judge Furman approved the settlement on the condition that any change to the settlement agreement receive court approval. He dismissed the case with prejudice, ruled that all pending motions were moot, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
The detailed version
- Navarrete v. Crystal Deli Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-06775
- Jesse Furman
- Jan. 7, 2022
Background
Miguel Navarrete brought this action individually and on behalf of others similarly situated under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law governing certain wage and hour rights. The parties informed the court that they had reached a settlement. In an earlier order, the court required them to submit a joint letter explaining the proposed settlement and addressing the factors used to evaluate whether such settlements are fair and reasonable.
Settlement approval
After reviewing the parties’ January 6, 2022 letter, the court found the settlement fair and reasonable. It considered the nature and scope of Navarrete’s individual claim and the risks and expenses of continued litigation. The court also noted that concerns about an employee being pressured to waive claims are less significant when the plaintiff no longer works for the defendant, as the court found was the situation here.
The court approved the settlement subject to one condition: any modification of the settlement agreement must be approved by the court, even if the agreement says that the parties may modify it without court approval.
Attorney’s fees and costs
Navarrete requested approval of $22,224.80 in attorney’s fees and costs. The court stated that the proposed fee was high compared with the lodestar—the amount calculated from counsel’s reasonable hours and rates—and compared with the size of Navarrete’s claim and recovery. Nevertheless, the court found no basis to reduce the fee because there were no opt-in plaintiffs, the case was not a collective action, and the fee was based on an agreement between Navarrete and his attorney. The court also stated that, consistent with decisions in the district, attorney’s fees equal to one-third of the recovery were appropriate. The court did not express an opinion on whether counsel’s hourly rates were reasonable.
Disposition
The court approved the settlement subject to the modification condition, dismissed the case with prejudice, ruled that all pending motions were moot, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.