Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 7, 2023

Rodriguez v. Victor's Wood Fired Pizza LLC d/b/a Mike & Joe's Wood Fired Pizza

Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Docket
7:22-cv-09654
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
FlsaFee PetitionCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Rodriguez v. Victor’s Wood Fired Pizza, Judge Briccetti approved the parties’ FLSA settlement and found the attorneys’ fees and costs reasonable.

Who this affects

Nieves L. Rodriguez; Victor’s Wood Fired Pizza LLC d/b/a Mike & Joe’s Wood Fired Pizza; RT Corp d/b/a Mike & Joe’s Wood Fired Pizza; Victor Vuljevic; and Rodriguez’s counsel regarding the approved fees and costs.

What happened

Rodriguez v. Victor’s Wood Fired Pizza was a Fair Labor Standards Act case in which Nieves L. Rodriguez filed a proposed settlement agreement for the court’s review.

The court considered the parties’ different views about Rodriguez’s potential recovery, the use of a neutral mediator, the parties’ desire to avoid continued litigation, and the agreement’s limited release of Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law claims. It also found that the release was not overly broad and that the agreement had no confidentiality or non-disparagement clause.

Judge Vincent L. Briccetti ruled that the settlement was fair, reasonable, and reached through arm’s-length negotiations rather than fraud or collusion. He also found reasonable the attorneys’ fees, equal to 33.33% of Rodriguez’s total recovery, plus reimbursement of costs, and approved the settlement agreement.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Rodriguez v. Victor's Wood Fired Pizza LLC d/b/a Mike & Joe's Wood Fired Pizza · No. 7:22-cv-09654
Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Date
July 7, 2023

Background

Nieves L. Rodriguez filed a proposed settlement agreement on June 30, 2023, in this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case. Rodriguez also filed a statement explaining the agreement’s basis, as required for the court’s review under the cited Second Circuit precedent.

Court’s Analysis

The court reviewed the settlement as a whole. It considered Rodriguez’s position that the agreement fairly reflected the potential recovery and the defendants’ position that Rodriguez had been properly paid and that they could disprove the estimates of hours worked each week. The court also considered that Rodriguez was represented by counsel experienced in FLSA and New York Labor Law matters, that a neutral mediator assisted with and encouraged the settlement, and that the parties wanted to resolve the case early because continued litigation could impose substantial burdens, expenses, and risks, including the possibility that Rodriguez would receive no recovery.

The court found that the release was not overbroad, that the agreement contained no confidentiality requirement or non-disparagement clause, and that the released claims were limited to FLSA and New York Labor Law claims. Based on those factors, the court found the agreement fair and reasonable and the product of arm’s-length negotiations, rather than fraud or collusion.

The court separately reviewed the billing records and related information submitted by Rodriguez’s counsel. It found reasonable attorneys’ fees equal to 33.33% of Rodriguez’s total recovery, along with reimbursement of costs.

Disposition

Judge Vincent L. Briccetti approved the parties’ settlement agreement. The opinion does not state the settlement’s total dollar amount or the amount of costs reimbursed.

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.