Curko v. Embe Restaurant Corp.
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:21-cv-05977
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Curko v. Embe Restaurant Corp., Judge Broderick approved the parties’ $55,000 Fair Labor Standards Act settlement as fair and reasonable.
Anthony Curko and Oscar Zarate, Embe Restaurant Corp. d/b/a Osteria 57, Emanuele Nigro, and plaintiffs’ counsel, whose settlement and requested fees and costs were approved.
What happened
In Curko v. Embe Restaurant Corp., Anthony Curko and Oscar Zarate brought a Fair Labor Standards Act case against Embe Restaurant Corp., doing business as Osteria 57, and Emanuele Nigro. The parties reached a settlement after mediation and asked the court to approve it.
The settlement provided $55,000 for the plaintiffs, including attorneys’ fees and expenses. The court found the amount reasonable because it reflected about 41% of the plaintiffs’ estimated possible damages, accounted for the defendants’ potential defenses, and was reached through arm’s-length negotiations without evidence of fraud or collusion.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick also found the requested $18,315 in attorneys’ fees and $852 in costs reasonable. He granted the motion to approve the settlement agreement.
The detailed version
- Curko v. Embe Restaurant Corp. · No. 1:21-cv-05977
- Vernon Broderick
- May 27, 2022
Background
Anthony Curko and Oscar Zarate brought this Fair Labor Standards Act case against Embe Restaurant Corp., doing business as Osteria 57, and Emanuele Nigro. The parties reached a settlement on or about March 17, 2022, after the case was referred to mediation. Because the Department of Labor had not approved the settlement, the parties asked the court to review and approve it.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that private settlements of Fair Labor Standards Act claims require approval by the district court or the Department of Labor. Without Department of Labor approval, the court must determine whether the settlement is fair and reasonable by considering the circumstances as a whole, including the plaintiffs’ possible recovery, the burdens and costs of continued litigation, litigation risks, the parties’ negotiations, and any possibility of fraud or collusion.
The agreement provided for $55,000 for the plaintiffs, inclusive of attorneys’ fees and expenses. The plaintiffs estimated Curko’s potential damages at $85,400 and Zarate’s at $49,042. They also calculated that, if the defendants prevailed on all their defenses, Curko could receive $0 and Zarate could receive $6,246. The court found the settlement amount fair and reasonable, noting that it represented roughly 41% of the plaintiffs’ estimated total possible damages and reflected the defenses the defendants might have raised. The court also found no basis to conclude that the agreement resulted from fraud or collusion, and noted that both sides were represented by counsel who negotiated at arm’s length.
The settlement awarded plaintiffs’ counsel $18,315 in fees and $852 in costs. The court found the fee request reasonable under both the percentage-of-the-settlement method and the lodestar method, which uses documented attorney time and rates. The requested fees were about one-third of the total settlement, and the lodestar multiplier was about 1.053.
Ruling
Judge Vernon S. Broderick found the settlement agreement fair and reasonable and granted the parties’ motion to approve it.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.