Ramirez v. Marriott International, Inc.
- Philip Halpern
- 7:20-cv-02397
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Ramirez v. Marriott International, Inc., Judge Halpern approved the FLSA settlement except attorneys’ fees, which remained under separate review.
The plaintiffs, including Humberto Ramirez and opt-in plaintiff Michael Boateng, and the defendants were affected by approval of the proposed FLSA settlement. Plaintiffs’ counsel’s separate attorneys’ fee application remained pending.
What happened
Ramirez v. Marriott International, Inc. involved claims that the defendants failed to pay overtime wages and other compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Humberto Ramirez filed the case as a class representative, and Michael Boateng later joined as an opt-in plaintiff.
The parties asked the court to approve a proposed settlement resolving the plaintiffs’ Fair Labor Standards Act claims. The court had previously denied an approval request without prejudice because of concerns about two settlement provisions; the parties then submitted a substitute motion and addendum addressing those concerns.
Judge Philip M. Halpern found the settlement fair and reasonable, except as to attorneys’ fees. He granted the request to approve the settlement to that extent, while considering the attorneys’ fee application separately.
The detailed version
- Ramirez v. Marriott International, Inc. · No. 7:20-cv-02397
- Philip Halpern
- Nov. 2, 2022
Background
Humberto Ramirez filed a Second Amended Complaint as a class representative, alleging that the defendants violated, among other laws, the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by failing to pay overtime wages and compensation. Michael Boateng later filed a corrected consent to join the lawsuit as an opt-in plaintiff.
The parties informed the court that they had reached a settlement in principle intended to resolve all claims in the action. They jointly moved for approval of a proposed settlement covering the plaintiffs’ FLSA claims.
Settlement-Approval Proceedings
The court previously declined to approve the proposed agreement’s provisions in Sections 4.1 and 5.4 and denied the parties’ initial approval motion without prejudice. The court also directed that plaintiffs’ counsel’s application for attorneys’ fees be considered separately from any replacement settlement-approval motion.
The parties filed a substitute joint motion and a proposed addendum. The court stated that those submissions addressed its concerns about Sections 4.1 and 5.4. It reviewed the corrected settlement agreement and related submissions under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., which requires review of FLSA settlements for fairness and reasonableness.
Ruling
The court found the proposed FLSA settlement fair and reasonable except to the extent it concerned attorneys’ fees. It therefore granted the request to approve the proposed FLSA settlement, excluding the attorneys’ fee issue. The opinion states that plaintiffs’ counsel’s fee application remained under consideration separately.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.