Del Rio v. 257 SG Pizza Corp.

Background

Carlos Del Rio brought claims against 257 SG Pizza Corp., Giuseppe Graci, and Francisco “Doe” under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law. He sought unpaid minimum wages, overtime compensation, liquidated damages, interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs. His New York claims also included an alleged unpaid “Spread of Hours” premium and alleged failures to provide a wage notice and paystubs.

Del Rio alleged that he worked as a delivery worker and also performed duties including washing dishes and stocking inventory. He alleged that, from approximately June 1, 2017, through approximately March 20, 2019, he generally worked five days per week for three weeks each month and four days during the remaining week. He alleged that he worked from 10:00 a.m. until about 10:30 p.m. without a break, totaling about 59 hours per week. He further alleged that he worked seven days per week for approximately two months in 2018, totaling about 75 hours per week. He alleged that he was paid $9.15 per hour through 2018 and $10.00 per hour beginning around January 1, 2018, with payment for some hours by check and the remaining hours in cash.

The parties reached a settlement and asked the court to approve it. Because FLSA claims generally cannot be dismissed through a settlement without approval by the court or the U.S. Department of Labor, the court reviewed the proposed agreement for fairness and reasonableness.

Court’s Analysis

The court identified several deficiencies in the settlement submission:

- Counsel did not provide a calculation of Del Rio’s maximum possible recovery under the FLSA and New York law, including liquidated damages. - Counsel explained fees for Jian Hang and Yongjin Bae but did not provide support for fees associated with seven other attorneys: Leticia Ochoa, Lorena Duarte, Jiajing Fan, Zindzi Baugh Corbett, Maritza Yanes, Diana Seo, and Ge Qu. - The description of the alleged 2018 schedule increase did not identify exactly when the change occurred or how long it lasted. - The court stated that it would not approve an agreement requiring the court to retain jurisdiction. - The proposed agreement listed the settlement amount as “$8,5000.00,” while the submission otherwise referred to $8,500.00.

Disposition

The court denied the request to approve the proposed settlement agreement because the deficiencies prevented it from finding that the agreement was fair and reasonable. The court directed the parties to submit an amended proposed settlement agreement curing those deficiencies by April 30, 2022. The opinion does not state whether the parties later submitted an amended agreement or whether a settlement was ultimately approved.