Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 3, 2023

Diaz v. Rockland Gardens Associates

Judge
Kenneth Karas
Docket
7:22-cv-03281
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
11
FlsaEmploymentFee PetitionCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Diaz v. Rockland Gardens Associates, Judge Karas approved the parties’ wage-settlement agreement and directed the Clerk to close the case.

Who this affects

Frank Diaz receives the settlement approved by the court, while Rockland Garden Associates resolves the wage-and-hour claims asserted against it. The agreement also pays Diaz’s counsel fees and costs and releases the specified wage-and-hour claims.

What happened

In Diaz v. Rockland Gardens Associates, Frank Diaz alleged that his former employer violated federal and New York wage laws by not paying overtime and by failing to provide required wage statements and notices. The parties asked the court to approve their settlement.

The court approved a $35,000 settlement after finding it reasonable in light of Diaz’s alleged damages, the employer’s factual defenses, and the risks and costs of continued litigation. The court also approved the agreement’s wage-related release, non-disparagement clause, and payment of attorneys’ fees and costs.

Judge Kenneth M. Karas granted the parties’ request for settlement approval 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
Diaz v. Rockland Gardens Associates · No. 7:22-cv-03281
Judge
Kenneth Karas
Date
Feb. 3, 2023

Background

Frank Diaz sued his former employer, Rockland Garden Associates, doing business as Rockland Garden Associates, L.P., under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Diaz alleged that he worked six days per week, from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., and was not paid overtime. He also alleged violations involving wage statements and required notices. He sought unpaid overtime and additional damages.

The parties reached a settlement and asked the court to approve it. Because federal law requires court or Department of Labor approval for certain settlements resolving Fair Labor Standards Act claims, the court reviewed whether the agreement was fair and reasonable.

Court’s Analysis

The settlement required Rockland Gardens to pay $35,000. The opinion states that Diaz would receive $23,023.15 after payment of attorneys’ fees and costs. Diaz estimated his total damages at approximately $73,840, so his net recovery represented about 31 percent of that estimate. The court found the recovery reasonable because Rockland Gardens disputed the hours Diaz claimed to have worked and identified managers, tenants, and contractors who could testify against his version of events. The settlement also avoided the risks and expenses of continued litigation.

The court found that the agreement was negotiated competently, in good faith, and at arm’s length, without fraud or collusion. The court was not aware of other similarly situated employees whose interests would weigh against approval.

The release covered wage-and-hour claims arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law connected to Diaz’s employment. The court approved it because it was limited to wage-and-hour matters rather than releasing unrelated claims. The court also approved the non-disparagement clause because it allowed Diaz to make truthful statements to third parties, including government agencies, about his employment and the litigation.

Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

The court approved the requested attorneys’ fees and costs. The opinion identifies $11,511.65 in fees and $465.30 in costs. It found the hourly rates and time records sufficiently supported and accepted a lodestar multiplier of approximately 1.7, considering the contingent nature of the representation and the work performed.

Disposition

The court granted the parties’ request for approval of the Settlement Agreement. It directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 11-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.