Puttre v. American Pizza Inc
- James Cott
- 1:23-cv-04705
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Puttre v. American Pizza Inc, Judge Cott approved the parties’ settlement of a wage-and-hour case.
Jacqueline Puttre, American Pizza, Inc., the other defendants, and Puttre’s counsel were affected by the court’s approval of their wage-and-hour settlement.
What happened
In Puttre v. American Pizza Inc, Jacqueline Puttre alleged violations of federal minimum-wage law and New York Labor Law against American Pizza, Inc. and other defendants.
After court-ordered mediation, the parties reached a settlement and jointly asked the court to approve their agreement. The settlement totaled $15,000, and the revised agreement clarified how the proceeds would be divided between Puttre and her lawyer.
Judge James L. Cott found the settlement terms, including attorney’s fees and costs, fair and reasonable and approved the agreement. The parties had to file a dismissal agreement by December 14, 2023, or the court would direct the Clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- Puttre v. American Pizza Inc · No. 1:23-cv-04705
- James Cott
- Dec. 7, 2023
Background
Jacqueline Puttre brought this wage-and-hour case against American Pizza, Inc. and other defendants. She alleged violations of the minimum-wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and several violations of New York Labor Law.
The parties participated in court-ordered mediation and reached a settlement. They consented to Magistrate Judge James L. Cott’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) to review the proposed settlement. They submitted a joint letter and a revised settlement agreement for approval under the standard requiring judicial review of many FLSA settlements. The footnote explains that the revised submission clarified the amounts Puttre and her counsel would receive because the original allocations did not add up to the agreed $15,000 total.
Court’s Analysis
The court noted that settlements in FLSA cases generally receive a strong presumption of fairness because courts may not be as well positioned as the parties to assess the reasonableness of an agreement. The court also considered the apparent financial situation of the defendants, including that an individual defendant needed to take an advance against a pension to pay the settlement. The court stated that potential difficulty collecting damages supported finding the settlement reasonable.
After reviewing the parties’ submission and agreement, the court found that all settlement terms—including the allocation of attorney’s fees and costs—appeared fair and reasonable under the circumstances and the factors used to evaluate wage-and-hour settlements. The court also stated that its approval of the attorney-fee allocation was not approval of the hourly rate of Puttre’s counsel, and that approval of the settlement did not approve the parties’ agreed tax allocations.
Disposition
The court approved the settlement agreement. The parties were directed to submit their stipulation of dismissal by December 14, 2023. If they did not do so, the court stated that it would direct the Clerk to close the case. The opinion does not state whether the stipulation was later filed or provide the individual dollar allocations in the settlement.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.