Osorio v. PJ's Lawn Service Inc.
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:21-cv-06413
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Osorio v. PJ's Lawn Service, Judge Engelmayer approved a $25,000 settlement of wage claims under federal and New York law.
Noe Gregorio Aquino Osorio, PJ’s Lawn Service Inc., Peter Creegan, and The Samuel Law Firm.
What happened
In Osorio v. PJ's Lawn Service Inc., the parties asked the court to approve a settlement of claims under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The proposed agreement required PJ’s Lawn Service Inc. and Peter Creegan to pay Noe Gregorio Aquino Osorio $16,286.66 and his law firm $8,713.34 in fees and costs.
The court previously found the total settlement of $25,000 substantively reasonable and reached through fair procedures, but it could not approve the agreement because the parties had not signed it. The parties later refiled the agreement with the required signatures.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer found that the signed agreement was reached through fair procedures and was fair and reasonable. He approved the settlement agreement.
The detailed version
- Osorio v. PJ's Lawn Service Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-06413
- Paul Engelmayer
- Jan. 3, 2023
Background
This case involved claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), a federal wage-and-hour law, and New York Labor Law. On December 14, 2022, the parties asked the court to approve a proposed settlement agreement. Under that agreement, defendants PJ’s Lawn Service Inc. and Peter Creegan would pay plaintiff Noe Gregorio Aquino Osorio $16,286.66. The agreement also provided for $8,713.34 in fees and costs to The Samuel Law Firm, Osorio’s law firm. The agreement allocated one third of the settlement amount, after costs, to plaintiff’s counsel as attorneys’ fees.
Earlier Review
On December 15, 2022, the court stated that the agreement was legally satisfactory and that it was prepared to approve the total settlement of $25,000 as substantively reasonable and reached through fair procedures. The court could not approve the agreement in its then-current form, however, because it did not contain the parties’ signatures.
On December 29, 2022, the parties filed the agreement again with the proper signatures.
Ruling
After reviewing the signed agreement, the court found that it had been reached through fair procedures and was fair and reasonable under the standard established in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. The court therefore approved the agreement.
Disposition
The court approved the signed settlement agreement.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.