Perez v. Buyk Corp.
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:21-cv-11168
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Perez v. Buyk Corp., Judge Schofield approved the revised settlement, granted counsel $3,724.80, and closed the case.
Michael Perez, the defendants, and Plaintiff’s counsel. The approved settlement will be distributed with $3,724.80 paid to counsel for costs and attorney’s fees and the remainder paid to Plaintiff.
What happened
In Michael Perez v. Buyk Corp., the court considered a revised settlement agreement resolving Plaintiff’s wage-and-hour claims. The court had previously denied approval because the agreement’s release was too broad and vague.
The revised agreement limited the released claims to those specifically related to the wage-and-hour claims in this action. The court found the settlement fair and reasonable based on the claims’ nature and scope and the risks and expenses of further litigation.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield approved the settlement, granted Plaintiff’s counsel $3,724.80 for costs and attorney’s fees, directed that the remainder go to Plaintiff, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
The detailed version
- Perez v. Buyk Corp. · No. 1:21-cv-11168
- Lorna Schofield
- Nov. 22, 2022
Background
Michael Perez filed the parties’ executed settlement agreement and asked the court to approve it. The court previously denied approval because the agreement contained an overly broad and vague release. That provision purported to release all wage-and-hour claims, including claims unrelated to this litigation, against a broad list of entities related to Defendant Food Start Inc.
Plaintiff’s counsel later filed a revised settlement agreement. The only change identified in the opinion was a revised release provision limiting the released claims to those “relating specifically to the wage and hour claims in this action.”
Ruling
The court approved the revised settlement agreement as fair and reasonable. In reaching that conclusion, it considered the nature and scope of Plaintiff’s claims and the risks and expenses involved in additional litigation.
The court also granted Plaintiff’s counsel’s request for $3,724.80. Of that amount, $587.20 was reimbursement for costs, and the remainder was an attorney’s fee. The court found the amount fair and reasonable in light of counsel’s quality, the risks of litigation, and the litigation’s magnitude and complexity.
The court directed that the remainder of the settlement be distributed to Plaintiff and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.