Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 24, 2023

Rojas v. Kaleo Construction Corp.

Judge
Rearden
Docket
1:23-cv-00199
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
5
FlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Rojas v. Kaleo Construction Corp., Judge Rearden approved a wage settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice.

Who this affects

Jorge Rojas receives $8,560.66 from the approved settlement, and his counsel receives $4,199.34. The settlement resolves the case against Kaleo Construction Corp. and the other named defendants.

What happened

Rojas v. Kaleo Construction Corp. was a proposed class action brought by Jorge Rojas over allegedly unpaid overtime wages and wage-notice damages under federal and New York wage laws.

The parties submitted several settlement drafts after the court required changes to provisions releasing or waiving claims unrelated to wage-and-hour issues. The final agreement provides Rojas $13,000 in two installments and allows his lawyer $4,199.34 in fees.

Judge Rearden found the settlement fair and reasonable, approved it, directed payment of the stated amounts, and dismissed the case with prejudice under the parties’ agreement.

The detailed version

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

Case
Rojas v. Kaleo Construction Corp. · No. 1:23-cv-00199
Judge
Rearden
Date
Oct. 24, 2023

Background

Jorge Rojas filed a putative class action on behalf of himself and similarly situated construction workers. He sought, among other things, unpaid overtime wages and wage-notice damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage law, and the New York Labor Law.

The parties first asked the court to approve a settlement in February 2023. The court requested additional information and instructed the parties that any release or waiver of claims should generally be limited to wage-and-hour matters unless the parties provided case-specific reasons for a broader provision. The court determined that a later draft still contained broader language concerning labor-law claims and directed the parties either to narrow the provisions or justify them. The parties then submitted a third draft settlement agreement.

Settlement Terms and Analysis

The court reviewed the final agreement, the parties’ supporting letters, and time records. It found the agreement fair and reasonable under the factors commonly used to evaluate Fair Labor Standards Act settlements, including the plaintiff’s possible recovery, litigation risks and expenses, the bargaining process, and the possibility of fraud or collusion.

The agreement provides Rojas with $13,000, paid in two installments of $6,500. The parties calculated his best possible recovery at $12,760. Rojas’s counsel requested $4,199.34, approximately one-third of the total recovery, and the court found that fee reasonable. The court also emphasized that the final agreement no longer required Rojas to release claims unrelated to wage-and-hour issues. Nothing suggested that the agreement resulted from improper bargaining, fraud, or collusion.

Ruling

The court granted the parties’ request to approve the third proposed settlement agreement. It directed that Rojas’s counsel receive $4,199.34 and that Rojas receive the remaining $8,560.66. Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the court dismissed the case with prejudice, directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions, and closed the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 5-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.