Nava Perez v. Karayiannis Global Group, Inc.
- Ona Wang
- 1:18-cv-10212-OTW
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Nava Perez v. Karayiannis Global Group, Judge Wang approved the parties’ revised settlement under federal wage law and directed the clerk to close the case.
The settlement parties—Norma Nava Perez and Karayiannis Global Group, Inc., et al.—and the case’s further proceedings were affected; the court directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
What happened
In Nava Perez v. Karayiannis Global Group, the court reviewed a proposed settlement after previously declining to approve an earlier version. The court had found problems with the attorneys’ fees, missing information about negotiations and possible fraud or collusion, and provisions limiting criticism and disclosure.
The parties filed a revised agreement, which the court found consistent with the required review standards for wage-and-hour settlements. The parties then failed to file a signed version despite six orders to do so, and filed the fully executed agreement only after the court threatened to strike the defendants’ answer and enter a default against them.
Judge Ona T. Wang approved the settlement and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
The detailed version
- Nava Perez v. Karayiannis Global Group, Inc. · No. 1:18-cv-10212-OTW
- Ona Wang
- Feb. 22, 2022
Background
The court had previously declined to approve the parties’ proposed settlement under the review required by Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. The court identified four problems: the attorneys’ fees were unreasonable; the parties provided no information about whether experienced counsel negotiated at arm’s length; they provided no information about possible fraud or collusion; and the agreement included non-disparagement and confidentiality provisions that conflicted with the purposes of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the federal law governing certain wage and hour protections.
The parties filed a revised proposed settlement agreement on April 22, 2021. The court reviewed it and found it consistent with the required standards, then approved the proposed settlement. The parties nevertheless failed to file a fully signed agreement. The court ordered them to sign and file it on six occasions. They ultimately did so only after the court threatened to strike the defendants’ answer and enter a default against them.
Ruling
The court approved the fully executed settlement under Cheeks and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. The opinion does not state the settlement amount, the underlying claims in detail, or the terms of the final agreement.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.