Jacques v. Imperial Parking, Inc.
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:21-cv-07102
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Jacques v. Imperial Parking, Judge Schofield approved a revised wage-and-hour settlement, granted counsel $12,248.65, and closed the case.
The plaintiff, the defendants, the plaintiff’s counsel, and REEF Technology, Inc. were affected by the settlement approval, release terms, fee award, and case closure.
What happened
In Jacques v. Imperial Parking (U.S.), Inc., the court approved the parties’ revised settlement of the plaintiff’s wage-and-hour claims.
The court had previously denied approval because the proposed release covered unrelated wage-and-hour claims and entities beyond the litigation. The revised agreement narrowed the release to claims specifically related to this lawsuit and limited the released entities to the defendants and REEF Technology, Inc., which counsel described as a parent company or affiliate.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield found the revised settlement fair and reasonable, granted counsel’s request for $12,248.65 in fees and expenses, directed that the remaining settlement proceeds be distributed to the plaintiff, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
The detailed version
- Jacques v. Imperial Parking, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-07102
- Lorna Schofield
- Apr. 21, 2022
Background
On March 29, 2022, the plaintiff filed the parties’ signed settlement agreement and requested court approval. On March 31, 2022, the court denied approval because Section 3 contained a release covering all wage-and-hour claims, including claims unrelated to this litigation, against a broad group of entities related to the defendants.
On April 20, 2022, the plaintiff’s counsel filed a revised settlement agreement. The only change was to Section 3. The revised release covered claims “relating specifically to the wage and hour claims in this lawsuit” and limited the released entities to the defendants and REEF Technology, Inc. Counsel represented that REEF Technology, Inc. was the defendants’ “parent company / affiliate.”
Rulings
The court approved the revised settlement as fair and reasonable, considering the nature and scope of the plaintiff’s claims and the risks and expenses of further litigation.
The court also granted plaintiff’s counsel’s request for $12,248.65. Of that amount, $874.68 reimbursed the costs of service of process and the filing fee, and the remainder was an attorney’s fee. The court found the amount fair and reasonable in light of counsel’s quality, the risks of litigation, and the litigation’s magnitude and complexity.
The court directed that the remainder of the settlement be distributed to the plaintiff and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.