Briggs v. DPV Transportation, Inc.

Background

Lionel Briggs and James Antwine filed a proposed class action against DPV Transportation, Inc., DPV Transportation Worldwide LLC, Daniel Perez, and Jose Perez. The claims arose under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Minimum Wage Act, Section 191 of the New York Labor Law, and the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act.

The plaintiffs and defendants jointly submitted a proposed settlement in November 2021. The court denied that proposal without prejudice on December 27, 2021. The parties then submitted a revised settlement addressing the court’s concerns.

The plaintiffs represented that Antwine worked 569.25 hours between May 17, 2021, and July 11, 2021, at $25 per hour without overtime pay. They calculated that he was owed $3,115.63 in additional overtime wages, an equal amount in liquidated damages, $1,950 for missing wage notices, and $5,000 for missing accurate weekly wage statements. They represented that Briggs worked 516.5 hours during the same period at $25 per hour without overtime pay. They calculated that he was owed $2,956.25 in additional overtime wages, an equal amount in liquidated damages, $2,050 for missing wage notices, and $5,000 for missing wage statements.

Court’s analysis

Under the revised settlement agreement, the defendants agreed to pay $26,000. Antwine would receive $8,512.64, Briggs would receive $8,371.36, and plaintiffs’ counsel would receive $9,116 for fees and costs. The plaintiffs represented that their total estimated recovery at trial would be $26,143.75. The court found that the plaintiffs’ settlement payments represented approximately 65% of their estimated potential recovery. The court also noted the parties’ representations that genuine disputes existed over each basis for damages, making settlement a way to avoid the expense, burden, and risk of trial.

The court found that the revised release provision was no longer too broad because it limited the waiver to claims relating to or arising from the claims at issue in the action.

The court also reviewed the requested attorneys’ fees. Counsel sought $9,116, described as approximately one-third of the settlement plus $536 in costs. Based on the submitted time records, the court calculated a lodestar multiplier of approximately 1.42, rather than the previously stated 1.59. Because the court had already found a 1.59 multiplier reasonable, it found the lower multiplier reasonable as well.

Ruling

Judge Kenneth M. Karas concluded that the revised settlement amount was fair and reasonable, the release was properly limited, and the attorneys’ fees and costs were reasonable. The court granted the plaintiffs’ request for approval of the parties’ revised settlement agreement.