Amarildo Fuentes v. Highgate Cleaners Inc.
- Ona Wang
- 1:20-cv-03925
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Fuentes v. Highgate Cleaners, Judge Wang approved the wage settlement and dismissed the action with prejudice.
Delman Amarildo Fuentes and the other plaintiffs receive the approved settlement amounts, while Highgate Cleaners Inc., Suk Sang Yoon, and Eun Ju Yoon obtain dismissal of the action with prejudice. Plaintiffs’ counsel receives the approved fees and costs.
What happened
Delman Amarildo Fuentes and other plaintiffs sued Highgate Cleaners Inc. and other defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. They alleged that the defendants failed to pay minimum and overtime wages and failed to provide required wage statements and notices.
The parties reached a mediated settlement for $32,500. Fuentes would receive $19,552.54, while his counsel would receive $12,947.46, including $9,775.51 in fees and $3,171.95 in costs. The court found the settlement reasonable in light of disputed work hours, litigation risks, and the defendants’ asserted limited ability to pay.
Judge Ona T. Wang approved the settlement as fair and reasonable, ordered that the action be dismissed with prejudice, and directed the Clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- Amarildo Fuentes v. Highgate Cleaners Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-03925
- Ona Wang
- Oct. 25, 2022
Background
Delman Amarildo Fuentes brought claims against Highgate Cleaners Inc., Suk Sang Yoon, and Eun Ju Yoon under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL). He alleged that the defendants failed to pay minimum and overtime wages and failed to provide wage statements and wage notices. The opinion states that he was employed at the defendants’ Manhattan dry cleaner.
The parties negotiated a settlement after extensive discussions and court-appointed mediation. They asked the court to approve the agreement under the required review for FLSA settlements.
Settlement Terms and Court’s Analysis
The proposed settlement totaled $32,500. Fuentes would receive $19,552.54. His counsel would receive $12,947.46, consisting of $9,775.51 in attorney’s fees and $3,171.95 in costs.
Fuentes alleged approximately $159,550 in back wages and estimated that his full recovery, excluding attorney’s fees, could have been approximately $329,100. The court noted that the estimated possible recovery ranged from $0 to $329,100. The court accepted the settlement’s reduced amount because the parties had sharply disputed the facts and law, including the actual hours Fuentes worked; Fuentes could recover nothing at trial; and the defendants asserted that they had limited ability to pay, including because of reduced income during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The court found that mediation supported a finding that the settlement resulted from arm’s-length bargaining. Nothing in the record suggested fraud or collusion. The release was limited to claims based on Fuentes’s employment through the date the agreement was executed and did not exceed wage-and-hour issues. The agreement contained no confidentiality or non-disparagement provision. The court also found the attorney’s fees and costs reasonable, noting that the fees were supported by billing records and were less than counsel’s stated lodestar, or the amount calculated from counsel’s time and rates.
Disposition
The court approved the parties’ proposed settlement as fair and reasonable. It ordered that the action be dismissed with prejudice and directed the Clerk to close the case. This order approved the settlement rather than deciding whether the alleged wage violations occurred.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.