Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 29, 2022

Quintanilla v. Arancini Bros. LLC

Judge
Lorna Schofield
Docket
1:22-cv-01410
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
EmploymentFee PetitionCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Quintanilla v. Arancini Bros., Judge Schofield approved a wage-related settlement, approved counsel’s fee request, and ordered the case closed.

Who this affects

Jose Quintanilla, Plaintiffs’ counsel, and the defendants identified in the order are affected by the approved settlement, the approved attorney’s-fee award, and closure of the case.

What happened

In Quintanilla v. Arancini Bros. LLC, the parties submitted a settlement agreement, time records, and a breakdown of Plaintiffs’ counsel’s fees. The opinion describes Plaintiff’s claims as involving alleged unpaid overtime, minimum wages, and spread-of-hours wages.

The court approved the settlement as fair and reasonable. After fees and costs, Plaintiff will receive $44,248.67. The court also granted counsel’s request for $23,251.33 in fees, excluding costs, and found that the settlement resulted from arm’s-length negotiations without any indication of fraud or collusion.

Judge Lorna G. Schofield ordered that the rest of the settlement be distributed to Plaintiffs and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Quintanilla v. Arancini Bros. LLC · No. 1:22-cv-01410
Judge
Lorna Schofield
Date
Nov. 29, 2022

Background

On November 21, 2022, the parties filed a joint letter and settlement agreement, along with contemporaneous time records and a breakdown of Plaintiffs’ counsel’s fees. The order describes the underlying claims as involving alleged unpaid overtime wages, minimum wages, and spread-of-hours wages.

Settlement Approval

The court approved the settlement as fair and reasonable. In evaluating the agreement, the court considered the nature and scope of the claims, the risks and expenses of further litigation, and the circumstances of the negotiations. The court found that the settlement resulted from arm’s-length negotiations by experienced counsel, facilitated through the court’s mediation program, and found no indication of fraud or collusion.

After attorney’s fees and costs, Plaintiff will receive $44,248.67. The court stated that this amount was approximately 18% of the maximum total damages Plaintiff estimated could be recovered at trial and approximately 48% of Plaintiff’s total alleged unpaid overtime, minimum, and spread-of-hours wages. The court also found that the agreement did not release claims unrelated to wage-and-hour issues.

Attorney’s Fees

The court granted Plaintiffs’ counsel’s request for $23,251.33 in attorney’s fees, exclusive of costs. The court noted that this amount was substantially less than the lodestar calculation—the presumptively reasonable fee calculated from a reasonable hourly rate multiplied by the reasonable number of hours worked—and was approximately one-third of the settlement. Although the hourly rates used in the calculation were on the high end of rates approved in similar cases in the circuit, the requested fee would have been less than the lodestar even if the rates were substantially lower. The court found the fee fair and reasonable considering counsel’s quality, the risks of litigation, and the case’s magnitude and complexity.

Disposition

Judge Lorna G. Schofield ordered that the remainder of the settlement be distributed to Plaintiffs. The Clerk of Court was respectfully directed to close the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.