Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 25, 2022

Garcia Ramos v. DNC Food Service Corp.

Judge
Vernon Broderick
Docket
1:19-cv-02967
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
7
FlsaFee PetitionCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Garcia Ramos v. DNC Food Service, Judge Broderick approved the revised Fair Labor Standards Act settlement and terminated the action.

Who this affects

The four named plaintiffs and the defendants—DNC Food Service Corp. doing business as Speedy’s Deli, Nikolaos Vasilatos, and Spiros Zisimatos—are affected by the approved settlement. The defendants must pay $240,000, including the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and expenses, and the action is terminated.

What happened

Garcia Ramos v. DNC Food Service Corp. involved a proposed settlement of the plaintiffs’ Fair Labor Standards Act wage case against DNC Food Service Corp., Nikolaos Vasilatos, and Spiros Zisimatos.

The revised agreement required the defendants to pay $240,000, including attorneys’ fees and expenses. It narrowed the release to wage-and-hour claims based on the facts in the case, included an exception allowing truthful statements, and allocated $80,535.75 to the plaintiffs’ attorneys for fees and expenses.

Judge Vernon S. Broderick found the revised settlement and the requested fees fair and reasonable, approved the agreement, and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the action.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Garcia Ramos v. DNC Food Service Corp. · No. 1:19-cv-02967
Judge
Vernon Broderick
Date
Feb. 25, 2022

Background

The parties told the court that they had signed a revised settlement resolving this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case. Because the Department of Labor had not approved the settlement, the court reviewed whether the agreement was fair and reasonable. The court considered the plaintiffs’ possible recovery, the burdens and costs of continued litigation, litigation risks, the parties’ negotiations, and the possibility of fraud or collusion.

Release of Claims

The court had rejected an earlier settlement because its release of claims was too broad. The revised agreement released claims asserted in this action, or claims that could have been brought based on the facts asserted here. It expressly limited the release to wage-and-hour claims arising on or before each plaintiff’s signing date and did not release later claims. The court found this language sufficiently narrow and fair.

Settlement Amount

The revised settlement required the defendants to pay the plaintiffs $240,000, including attorneys’ fees and expenses. The plaintiffs had calculated their total possible damages at $1,209,467.47. The parties said the settlement reflected the risks of trial, including the possibility that a factfinder might not credit the plaintiffs’ testimony and that existing time and pay records might limit some damages. The parties negotiated through the Southern District of New York’s mediation program. The court found no basis to believe that fraud or collusion affected the agreement and found the settlement amount fair and reasonable.

Non-Disparagement Provision

The agreement prohibited conduct injurious to the other parties’ reputations and interests, including public disparagement, denigration, or criticism. It also allowed the parties to truthfully communicate their experiences concerning the case or settlement. The court found this exception made the provision reasonable.

Attorneys’ Fees

The agreement allocated $80,535.75 to the plaintiffs’ attorneys, consisting of $79,732.12 in fees and $803.63 in expenses. The total was slightly less than one-third of the settlement amount. Based on the attorneys’ billing records and calculations, the amount represented an approximate 1.1 multiplier of the total attorney and paralegal time expended, using hourly rates ranging from $300 to $450. The court found the requested fees and expenses proper under both the percentage-of-the-settlement and lodestar methods.

Ruling

Judge Vernon S. Broderick found the revised settlement, including the requested attorneys’ fees, fair and reasonable. The court approved the revised settlement and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the action.

The authoritative version

Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.