Chavaloc Choror v. Abitino's Pizza 49th Street Corp.
- Figueredo
- 1:19-cv-09297
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Chavaloc Choror v. Abitino’s Pizza, Judge Figueredo required two settlement corrections before approving the parties’ Fair Labor Standards Act agreement.
The two plaintiffs and the defendant restaurant entities and individuals were affected. The order required them to revise their settlement agreement before the court would approve it.
What happened
Pedro Giddel Chavaloc Choror and Renato Lopez Say Aman sued Abitino’s Pizza 49th Street Corp., related restaurant entities, and several individuals under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The parties reached a settlement and asked the court to approve it.
An earlier proposed agreement was not approved because its release was too broad. The amended agreement fixed most of those problems, but its release needed two more changes: it had to refer to the defendants and their officers, owners, and agents, and it had to include a release by the defendants of the plaintiffs for claims related to this lawsuit.
Judge Valerie Figueredo ordered that the parties submit a revised agreement containing those changes. The court stated that it would approve the settlement as fair and reasonable after receiving the corrected agreement, but this order did not itself approve the settlement.
The detailed version
- Chavaloc Choror v. Abitino's Pizza 49th Street Corp. · No. 1:19-cv-09297
- Figueredo
- Nov. 14, 2022
Background
The plaintiffs brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The parties consented to the court’s handling of the case and reached an agreement to resolve it. They asked the court to approve the settlement under the requirement that Fair Labor Standards Act settlements receive judicial review for fairness.
Earlier Settlement Review
On May 24, 2022, Judge Analisa Torres found that the original settlement agreement satisfied the relevant fairness factors but rejected its liability release. The release bound the plaintiffs and additional people connected to them, released entities beyond the defendants, and did not give the plaintiffs any release from liability. Judge Torres denied approval without prejudice to submitting a revised agreement with a narrower release covering only the parties and claims arising from the facts at issue in the lawsuit.
Amended Agreement
The parties later submitted an amended agreement. The court found that the revised release properly bound only the plaintiffs, rather than their heirs, executors, administrators, successors, or assigns. It also found that the revised release covered only the defendants, rather than unrelated affiliated entities.
The court identified two remaining corrections. First, the release needed to say that it covered “Defendants and Defendants’ officers, owners, and agents,” rather than stating that it covered “Defendants, officers, owners, and agents.” Second, the release needed to state that the defendants released the plaintiffs from known claims and liabilities relating specifically to this litigation. The court explained that releases must be mutual.
Ruling
Judge Valerie Figueredo required the parties to submit a revised settlement agreement reflecting those corrections. The court stated that, upon receiving the revised agreement, it would approve the settlement as fair and reasonable. The order therefore required revisions but did not itself approve the settlement.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.