Ramirez v. Amina 50, Inc.
- Figueredo
- 1:15-cv-09448-VF
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Ramirez v. Amina 50, Inc., Judge Figueredo denied without prejudice approval of a federal and New York wage-claim settlement because its release was nonmutual and overbroad.
The plaintiff and the defendants were affected because the court did not approve their proposed settlement and required a revised release provision before approval.
What happened
Ramirez v. Amina 50, Inc. is a wage case under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The parties reached an agreement in principle and asked the court to approve their proposed settlement.
The court found two problems with the agreement’s liability release. It did not release both sides equally: the plaintiff gave up a broader set of claims than the defendants did. It also covered many people and organizations beyond the named defendants, including affiliates, owners, attorneys, and managers.
Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo denied the settlement-approval motion without prejudice to refiling. The court stated that it would approve a revised agreement that corrected the release provision.
The detailed version
- Ramirez v. Amina 50, Inc. · No. 1:15-cv-09448-VF
- Figueredo
- Nov. 15, 2022
Background
Abelino B. Ramirez sued Amina 50, Inc., doing business as Pescatore Restaurant, Charles Devigne, and EVOO Group, LLC, under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The parties consented to the court’s authority to decide the case. After reaching an agreement in principle, they submitted a proposed settlement and a joint explanation asking the court to find that the settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate.
Court’s Analysis
The court reviewed the proposed agreement to determine whether it was a reasonable compromise of the claims. It found the liability-release provision improper in two respects.
First, the release was not mutual, meaning that it did not impose equivalent release obligations on both sides. The plaintiff released a broad range of known and unknown claims relating specifically to the litigation. The defendants, by contrast, released the plaintiff only from known claims and liabilities relating specifically to the litigation.
Second, the release was overbroad because it discharged not only the named defendants but also their heirs, successors, assigns, affiliates, parent organizations, subsidiaries, directors, owners, shareholders, members, agents, attorneys, legal representatives, and managers.
Disposition
Judge Valerie Figueredo denied the parties’ motion for settlement approval without prejudice to refiling a revised settlement agreement. The court directed that the release provision be amended as described in the order and stated that, upon submission of a revised agreement reflecting those changes, it would approve the settlement as fair and reasonable.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.