Chavez v. The Fifth Labor, LLC
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:22-cv-07781
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Chavez v. The Fifth Labor, Judge Ramos approved a $25,000 wage-settlement agreement and $8,330 attorney-fee award.
Juanita Paulina Chavez, The Fifth Labor, LLC, Anthony Rhodes, and Chavez’s counsel were directly affected. The approved agreement also released Chavez’s specified wage-related claims against the defendants.
What happened
Juanita Paulina Chavez sued The Fifth Labor, LLC and Anthony Rhodes, alleging that her former employers failed to pay overtime wages required by federal and New York law. The parties asked the court to approve a revised settlement after the court had earlier rejected their first application because it lacked information about Chavez’s work hours, wages, recovery estimate, and legal billing.
The revised agreement required a total payment of $25,000, including legal fees. Chavez would receive $16,670 after the $8,330 fee deduction. She estimated that her maximum recovery could be $38,635, so the settlement represented about 43% of that estimate. The agreement also released her wage-related claims against the defendants.
Judge Edgardo Ramos ruled that the settlement was fair and reasonable, and that the requested attorney fees were reasonable. The court approved the agreement, directed the clerk to terminate the settlement motion, and closed the case.
The detailed version
- Chavez v. The Fifth Labor, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-07781
- Edgardo Ramos
- May 25, 2023
Background
Juanita Paulina Chavez brought claims against The Fifth Labor, LLC and Anthony Rhodes alleging that they failed to pay her overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Chavez also asserted claims under the Wage Theft Prevention Act and the Spread of Hours Wage Order. She brought the case individually and on behalf of others similarly situated.
The parties first asked the court to approve their settlement on March 29, 2023. The court declined to approve that application without prejudice because the parties had not provided an estimate of Chavez’s hours worked, her hourly wage, clear information about her estimated recovery and its components, or billing records supporting the requested attorney fees. The parties then filed a revised settlement motion.
Settlement Amount and Release
The revised agreement provided for a total recovery of $25,000, inclusive of legal fees. Chavez’s counsel would receive $8,330, described as one-third of the settlement award, leaving Chavez with $16,670. Counsel agreed to waive costs.
Chavez estimated that her maximum recovery on all claims was $38,635, including $21,660 in unpaid overtime, $10,000 in statutory penalties under the Wage Theft Prevention Act, and $6,975 on her New York Labor Law claims. The settlement therefore represented approximately 43% of her estimated maximum recovery rather than full payment of all claims.
The agreement released claims and rights connected with Chavez’s alleged employment by the defendants, including wage-and-hour claims under the federal and New York statutes identified in the agreement. The court found that the settlement resolved genuine disputes, reflected a reasonable compromise in light of litigation risks and delays, and resulted from arm’s-length negotiations involving experienced labor and employment attorneys.
Attorney Fees
The court also reviewed the requested $8,330 in attorney fees. As a cross-check, the court used the lodestar method, which multiplies a reasonable hourly rate by a reasonable number of hours worked. It found reasonable rates of $500 per hour for Nolan Klein, $325 per hour for Laura Adame, and $150 per hour for Melanie Delgado’s paralegal work. The court calculated a total lodestar of $8,962.50 based on 12.7 hours for Klein, 7 hours for Adame, and 2.25 hours for Delgado.
The requested $8,330 fee resulted in a lodestar multiplier of approximately 0.93. The court accepted that multiplier and found the requested fees reasonable under the circumstances.
Ruling
Judge Edgardo Ramos held that the revised settlement complied with the required review standard for Fair Labor Standards Act settlements and approved the agreement. The court directed the clerk to terminate the motion and close the case.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.