Ramirez v. N&M Food Wholesale Supply Inc.
- James Cott
- 1:20-cv-09557
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Ramirez v. N&M Food Wholesale Supply Inc., Judge Cott approved the parties’ wage-and-hour settlement, closed the case, and retained jurisdiction to enforce it.
Enrique Ramirez and the defendants are affected by the approved settlement. The parties must follow its terms, and the court retained jurisdiction solely to enforce the agreement.
What happened
Ramirez v. N&M Food Wholesale Supply Inc. was a wage-and-hour case involving Enrique Ramirez and the defendants. The parties submitted a signed settlement agreement for court review after participating in mediations and a settlement conference.
The court found that the settlement’s terms appeared fair and reasonable under the circumstances. The court also considered the defendants’ apparent financial difficulties resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic and the possible difficulty of collecting damages.
Judge James L. Cott approved the settlement, including its limited release and attorney-fee and cost allocation, but did not approve counsel’s hourly rates or the parties’ tax allocations. He directed the Clerk to close the case while retaining jurisdiction solely to enforce the settlement agreement.
The detailed version
- Ramirez v. N&M Food Wholesale Supply Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-09557
- James Cott
- June 8, 2022
Background
Enrique Ramirez brought this wage-and-hour case against N&M Food Wholesale Supply Inc. and the other defendants. The parties consented to Magistrate Judge James L. Cott’s jurisdiction and submitted a joint letter and a fully executed settlement agreement for review under the federal appellate decision requiring court review of certain Fair Labor Standards Act settlements.
The parties participated in a court-ordered mediation, an earlier mediation, and a settlement conference with Judge Cott. The court noted a strong presumption that settlements in Fair Labor Standards Act cases are fair, as well as the defendants’ apparent financial situation resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic and the potential difficulty of collecting damages.
Court’s Analysis
After reviewing the joint letter and settlement agreement, the court determined that all settlement terms appeared fair and reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. This included the agreement’s limited release and its allocation of attorney’s fees and costs as one-third of the settlement amount.
The court clarified that its approval of the fee allocation did not approve the hourly rate of any of Ramirez’s attorneys. Approval also depended on the parties’ representation that attorney Michael Faillace, who was suspended from practicing in the district, would receive no proceeds from the settlement. The court took no position on the parties’ agreed tax allocations.
Disposition
The court approved the proposed settlement. At the parties’ request, it retained jurisdiction over the case, and could reopen it if necessary, solely to enforce the settlement agreement. The Clerk was directed to close the case. The parties could later submit a stipulation of final dismissal.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.