Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 22, 2023

Zavala v. Top Shelf Electric Corp.

Judge
Paul Engelmayer
Docket
1:20-cv-09437
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
EmploymentCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Zavala v. Top Shelf Electric Corp., Judge Engelmayer approved the revised wage-settlement agreement and directed the Clerk to close the case.

Who this affects

The settlement affects the plaintiffs, the defendant parties, and the plaintiffs’ attorneys. The approved agreement requires payment to the plaintiffs and payment of attorneys’ fees and costs, and the case was closed.

What happened

In Zavala v. Top Shelf Electric Corp., the parties submitted a proposed settlement in a lawsuit under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

The agreement required the defendants to pay $33,648.53 to the plaintiffs and $16,351.47 in attorneys’ fees and costs. The court initially found the release of claims too broad, but the revised agreement limited the release to claims raised in this case.

The court found that the revised agreement was reached fairly and was fair and reasonable. Judge Paul A. Engelmayer approved the agreement 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
Zavala v. Top Shelf Electric Corp. · No. 1:20-cv-09437
Judge
Paul Engelmayer
Date
Feb. 22, 2023

Background

The plaintiffs brought an action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (NYLL). On February 2, 2023, the parties submitted a proposed settlement agreement and a supporting letter.

Proposed Settlement

Under the proposed agreement, the defendants would pay $33,648.53 to the plaintiffs and $16,351.47 in attorneys’ fees and costs to Kakalec Law PLLC, the plaintiffs’ attorneys. The agreement allocated one-third of the settlement amount, after costs, to plaintiffs’ counsel as attorneys’ fees.

The court stated that the overall settlement amount was substantively reasonable but found the original release clause too broad because it covered “including but not limited to, any and all claims” asserted in the case. The parties submitted a revised agreement on February 21, 2023. The revised release clause expressly limited the released claims to “those claims raised in the Action.”

Ruling

After reviewing the revised agreement, the court found that it was reached through procedurally fair means and was fair and reasonable under the standard for reviewing FLSA settlements. The court approved the agreement and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.

Effect

The order approved the parties’ settlement and ended the case on the court’s docket. The opinion does not provide further information about the individual plaintiffs identified by “et al.”

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.