Ramirez v. Columbus Restaurant Fund IV, LLC
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:20-cv-08053
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Ramirez v. Columbus Restaurant Fund IV, LLC: Judge Broderick approved the revised FLSA settlement after finding its terms fair and reasonable.
Noe Galvez Ramirez and the defendants involved in the settlement, including Columbus Restaurant Fund IV, LLC; the order approved their revised settlement of the asserted or potentially assertable FLSA and New York Labor Law wage-and-hour claims.
What happened
In Noe Galvez Ramirez v. Columbus Restaurant Fund IV, LLC, the parties told the court they had reached a settlement in a Fair Labor Standards Act case. Court approval was required because the parties had not obtained approval from the Department of Labor.
The court had previously rejected the proposed agreement because its release was too broad and it included a non-solicitation provision. The revised agreement limited the release to wage-and-hour claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law that were asserted or could have been asserted in the case, and removed the non-solicitation provision.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick independently reviewed the revised agreement and supporting evidence, found the terms fair, reasonable, and adequate, and granted the parties’ request for approval. The court also incorporated its earlier finding that the $5,000 settlement amount and $2,000 in attorneys’ fees were fair and reasonable.
The detailed version
- Ramirez v. Columbus Restaurant Fund IV, LLC · No. 1:20-cv-08053
- Vernon Broderick
- Feb. 1, 2022
Background
The parties advised the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York that they had reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case. The court explained that parties may not privately settle FLSA claims with prejudice without approval from the court or the Department of Labor. Without Department of Labor approval, the court required the parties to show that the settlement was fair and reasonable.
The court had earlier reviewed the proposed settlement and determined that it was not fair and reasonable because it contained an overbroad release and an impermissible non-solicitation provision. The court had already found that the $5,000 settlement amount and $2,000 in attorneys’ fees were fair and reasonable. It directed the parties either to submit a revised settlement agreement or to state that they intended to abandon the settlement.
Revised Agreement
The parties submitted a revised proposed settlement agreement on January 31, 2022. The revised release was limited to FLSA and New York Labor Law wage-and-hour claims that Noe Galvez Ramirez had asserted or could have asserted against the released parties in this action. The revised agreement also removed a provision stating that Ramirez had not suffered any unreported or unaddressed workplace injury.
The parties deleted the non-solicitation provision, which had barred Ramirez from initiating, encouraging, assisting, or participating in proceedings against the released parties, including by providing information to another person bringing such a proceeding, except as required by law.
Ruling
The court independently reviewed the revised settlement agreement and the supporting evidence. It found the revised terms fair, reasonable, and adequate. The court therefore granted the parties’ request to approve the agreement and ordered that the settlement be approved. The opinion does not state any separate disposition of the underlying FLSA claims beyond approval of the settlement.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.