Shaw v. ProCore, LLC
- Analisa Torres
- 1:21-cv-03883
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Shaw v. ProCore, LLC, Judge Torres denied without prejudice the parties’ request to approve their wage-settlement agreement.
The ruling affects Aliscia Shaw and ProCore, LLC by withholding approval of their proposed wage-settlement agreement and permitting them to renew the request with revised materials.
What happened
Aliscia Shaw sued ProCore, LLC, claiming unpaid overtime, unlawful wage deductions, and missing wage statements and notices under federal and New York wage laws. The parties reached a proposed settlement and asked the court to approve it.
The proposed settlement would pay Shaw $15,000, including attorney’s fees and costs. The court said it lacked enough supporting information to assess whether the amount was fair, including evidence supporting Shaw’s estimated unpaid wages and a detailed explanation of the litigation risks. The court also found the agreement’s release of claims too broad.
Judge Analisa Torres denied the settlement-approval motion without prejudice to renewal. She found the requested attorney’s fees and costs reasonable, but allowed the parties to submit a revised letter and settlement agreement by August 3, 2023.
The detailed version
- Shaw v. ProCore, LLC · No. 1:21-cv-03883
- Analisa Torres
- July 3, 2023
Background
Aliscia Shaw brought claims against ProCore, LLC under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage law, and the New York Labor Law. She alleged that ProCore failed to pay overtime wages, made unlawful wage deductions, and failed to provide required wage statements and notices. The parties reached a settlement and jointly sought court approval.
Settlement terms and review
The proposed settlement provided Shaw with $15,000, including attorney’s fees and costs. Shaw estimated that she was owed approximately $12,217.20 in unpaid wages, but she did not submit declarations or exhibits supporting the accuracy of that estimate or explaining why the settlement amount was sufficient. The court also found that the parties’ description of litigation risks consisted only of general statements and did not provide enough detail for the court to evaluate the settlement’s fairness.
The settlement included a broad release of liability. It released not only ProCore but also numerous affiliated entities and individuals, including current and former affiliates, owners, officers, employees, insurers, and attorneys. It also covered wage-and-hour claims that might be unrelated to Shaw’s lawsuit, including claims for spread-of-hours pay, split-shift pay, bonuses, expense reimbursement, accrued benefit time, and late payment. The court further noted that the agreement gave Shaw no release from liability.
Attorney’s fees and costs
Shaw’s counsel requested $4,843 in attorney’s fees and $470 in costs. The fee request represented one-third of the settlement proceeds after reimbursement of costs. Counsel submitted contemporaneous billing records showing 36.14 hours of work and a lodestar—the total value of those hours at the stated hourly rates—of $18,068.33. The court found the requested attorney’s fees fair and reasonable, and it also found the requested costs reasonable.
Disposition
The court denied the parties’ motion for settlement approval without prejudice to renewal. The court did not approve the proposed settlement because the record did not adequately establish that the settlement amount was fair and reasonable, and because the release was overbroad. The parties were permitted to file a revised letter and settlement agreement by August 3, 2023.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.