Tepale v. 245 Gourmet Food Inc.
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:21-cv-05950
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Tepale v. 245 Gourmet Food Inc., Judge Ramos approved a $24,000 wage settlement, including $7,840.66 for attorneys’ fees and costs, and closed the case.
Arnoldo Tepale receives $16,159.34 under the approved settlement; the defendants resolve the claims covered by the agreement; and Tepale’s counsel receives $7,840.66 in approved fees and costs. The case is closed.
What happened
In Tepale v. 245 Gourmet Food Inc., Arnoldo Tepale accused 245 Gourmet Food Inc., doing business as Cafe 28, and Eui Chun Whang of violating federal and New York wage laws. He alleged that they failed to pay minimum wage and overtime, provide required wage notices and statements, and avoid improper wage deductions.
The parties asked the court to approve their settlement. The agreement provides $24,000 total: $16,159.34 to Tepale and approximately $7,840.66 for his attorneys’ fees and costs. Although Tepale estimated his maximum recovery at $89,763.59, the court found the settlement fair because the parties faced disputed facts, litigation risks, and delays, and negotiated at a court-ordered mediation.
Judge Edgardo Ramos granted the motion for settlement approval, found the attorneys’ fees and costs and the agreement’s other provisions reasonable, directed the Clerk to terminate the motion, and closed the case.
The detailed version
- Tepale v. 245 Gourmet Food Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-05950
- Edgardo Ramos
- Apr. 21, 2022
Background
Arnoldo Tepale brought a collective action against 245 Gourmet Food Inc., doing business as Cafe 28, and Eui Chun Whang. He alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), New York Labor Law, and related New York State Department of Labor regulations. The alleged violations included failure to pay the lawful minimum wage and overtime compensation, failure to provide proper wage notices and wage statements, and improper wage deductions.
The parties filed a joint motion asking the court to approve their settlement. In this court, an FLSA claim cannot be privately settled with prejudice without approval by the court or the Department of Labor. The court therefore evaluated whether the agreement was fair and reasonable.
Settlement Amount
The proposed settlement provides a total recovery of $24,000. Tepale’s counsel will receive $7,840.66 for attorneys’ fees and costs, leaving $16,159.34 for Tepale.
Tepale estimated that he could recover $89,763.59 if he prevailed, consisting of $33,248.81 in unpaid minimum wages and overtime, $33,248.81 in liquidated damages, $10,000 for invalid wage notices and statements, $12,930.98 in prejudgment interest, and $335 in withheld wages. The settlement represented approximately 18% of that estimated total.
The court nevertheless found the amount fair and reasonable. It relied on the value of resolving the case without the risks and delays of further litigation, sharply disputed factual and legal issues, and records produced by the defendants concerning hours worked and wages paid. The settlement resulted from arm’s-length negotiations at a court-ordered mediation and reflected a reasonable compromise of disputed issues.
Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
The court approved the requested $7,840.66 in fees and costs. It found reasonable the hourly rates of $450 for Michael Faillace and $350 for Catalina Sojo. The court also treated the unidentified person designated by the initials “PL” as a paralegal based on the work performed and approved an hourly rate of $125, while noting that Tepale had not provided that person’s role and experience.
The billing records showed a lodestar—the reasonable hourly rates multiplied by the reasonable hours worked—of $7,890. The requested amount included $7,362.66 in attorneys’ fees and $478 in costs for a filing fee and process-server fee. The court accepted a 0.93 lodestar multiplier and found both the fees and costs reasonable.
Other Settlement Provisions
The court found the remaining settlement terms fair and reasonable. It noted that the agreement contained no objectionable release, non-disparagement provision, or confidentiality provision. The release was limited to claims that had arisen by the date the parties signed the agreement and that related specifically and solely to the allegations raised, or that could have been raised, in this action.
Disposition
The court granted the parties’ motion for settlement approval. It found the settlement agreement fair and reasonable, directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion, and closed the case.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.