Hernandez Ramirez v. 35 Bakery Cafe Corp.
- Analisa Torres
- 1:21-cv-00458
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Hernandez Ramirez v. AA BC Bakery Cafe Corp., Judge Torres approved the revised $40,000 wage settlement after narrowing its release.
The settlement approval affects Alfredo Hernandez Ramirez and Lizabeth Huertas Ramirez, the defendants AA BC Bakery Café Corp., Christine Pae, Bobby P. Pae, and Albert Pae, and plaintiffs’ counsel, whose $13,333.33 fee was approved. The case was closed.
What happened
In Hernandez Ramirez v. AA BC Bakery Cafe Corp., Alfredo Hernandez Ramirez and Lizabeth Huertas Ramirez claimed that AA BC Bakery Café Corp. and the individual defendants violated the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and New York law by failing to pay minimum wages and overtime and by violating wage-notice and wage-statement requirements.
The court had previously rejected an earlier settlement because its release was too broad. The revised agreement mutually released the plaintiffs and defendants, applied only to those parties, and covered wage-and-hour and record-keeping claims based on conduct arising on or before the signing date, particularly the claims in this case. The revised settlement provided a total payment of $40,000.
Judge Torres approved the revised settlement and found the requested $13,333.33 attorney fee reasonable. She directed the Clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the case.
The detailed version
- Hernandez Ramirez v. 35 Bakery Cafe Corp. · No. 1:21-cv-00458
- Analisa Torres
- July 5, 2022
Background
Alfredo Hernandez Ramirez and Lizabeth Huertas Ramirez sued AA BC Bakery Café Corp., doing business as The Bread Factory Cafe, Christine Pae, Bobby P. Pae, and Albert Pae. Their claims included minimum-wage and unpaid-overtime claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), along with related claims and wage-notice and wage-statement claims under the New York Labor Law.
On May 24, 2022, the court denied the parties’ request to approve an earlier proposed settlement. The parties then submitted a revised settlement for approval.
Settlement Approval
The court applied the requirement that an FLSA settlement be fair and reasonable. It considered the factors identified in Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc., including the plaintiffs’ possible recovery, the burdens and costs of continued litigation, litigation risks, whether experienced counsel negotiated at arm’s length, and the possibility of fraud or collusion. The court had already found that the earlier settlement satisfied those factors, and it found that the revised settlement did as well because the agreements were largely identical in other respects.
The earlier agreement’s release clause was defective because it released only the defendants, bound or benefited entities beyond the parties, and was not limited to claims based on the facts of the lawsuit. The revised clause mutually released the plaintiffs and defendants, applied only to those parties, and covered wage-and-hour and record-keeping claims based on conduct arising on or before the date the revised settlement was signed, particularly the claims raised in this action. The court found that limitation fair and reasonable and approved the revised settlement.
Attorney’s Fees
The settlement provided for a total payment of $40,000, of which plaintiffs’ counsel requested $13,333.33 in attorney’s fees—approximately one-third of the settlement. The court reviewed contemporaneous billing records showing approximately 38.6 hours of work. Michael Faillace billed approximately 3.3 hours at $450 per hour, producing a lodestar of $1,485, and William Oates billed approximately 35.3 hours at $400 per hour, producing a lodestar of $14,120. The total lodestar was $15,605.
The requested fee produced a lodestar multiplier of 1.2. The court accepted that multiplier and found the $13,333.33 fee reasonable under the circumstances.
Disposition
The court GRANTED the parties’ request for approval of the settlement. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate all pending motions and close the case.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.