DeFaria v. JL Pavers Incorporated
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:22-cv-03514
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In DeFaria v. JL Pavers, Judge Briccetti approved the Fair Labor Standards Act settlement and dismissed the case, allowing restoration by August 10, 2022.
Paulo T. DeFaria, JL Pavers Incorporated, and Jose De Freitas. The approved settlement resolved the action, and the case was closed subject to a motion to restore filed by August 10, 2022.
What happened
Paulo T. DeFaria sued JL Pavers Incorporated and Jose De Freitas under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage-and-hour law. The parties filed a settlement agreement for the court’s review.
The court found the settlement fair, reasonable, and reached through arm’s-length negotiations rather than fraud or collusion. It considered the value of DeFaria’s claims, the risks and costs of continuing the case, his representation by counsel, mediation, his former employment, the limited wage-and-hour release, and the absence of confidentiality and nondisparagement clauses. The court also found reasonable the attorneys’ fees equal to one-third of DeFaria’s net recovery, plus reimbursement of costs.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti approved the settlement and dismissed the action without prejudice to restoring it to the court’s calendar. Any motion to restore had to be filed by August 10, 2022; the clerk was instructed to terminate the motion and close the case.
The detailed version
- DeFaria v. JL Pavers Incorporated · No. 7:22-cv-03514
- Vincent Briccetti
- July 11, 2022
Background
Paulo T. DeFaria brought this Fair Labor Standards Act case against JL Pavers Incorporated and Jose De Freitas. On July 9, 2022, DeFaria filed a settlement agreement and a statement explaining its basis, as required for the court’s review under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc.
Settlement Review
The court reviewed whether the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable. It considered DeFaria’s position about the proper value of his claims; the risks and costs of continuing to litigate; his representation by counsel; the parties’ use of a mediator; the fact that DeFaria no longer worked for the defendants; the release’s limitation to wage-and-hour claims; and the absence of confidentiality and nondisparagement provisions.
The court found that the agreement was fair and reasonable and resulted from arm’s-length negotiations, rather than fraud or collusion. It also found reasonable the attorneys’ fees, which were one-third of DeFaria’s net recovery, along with reimbursement of costs.
Disposition
The court approved the settlement agreement. It ordered that the action be dismissed without prejudice to the right to restore it to the court’s calendar, provided that a motion to restore was made no later than August 10, 2022. The court stated that a later application could be denied solely because it was untimely. The clerk was instructed to terminate the settlement motion and close the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.