San Martin v. F & M Scarsdale Pizza Corp
- Judith McCarthy
- 7:22-cv-06346
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In San Martin v. F & M Scarsdale Pizza Corp, U.S. Magistrate Judge McCarthy approved the parties’ settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice.
The order affects Orlando Facundo San Martin, F & M Scarsdale Pizza Corp., and Mentor Krasniqi by approving their settlement, awarding plaintiff’s counsel 33.3% under the agreement, and ending the case with prejudice.
What happened
San Martin v. F & M Scarsdale Pizza Corp involved Orlando Facundo San Martin’s claims that F & M Scarsdale Pizza Corp. and Mentor Krasniqi violated federal and New York wage laws. The parties asked the court to approve their settlement.
An earlier settlement request was denied because the parties had not adequately supported the proposed recovery, used an overly broad release, and requested unreasonable attorney’s fees. The parties later submitted revised agreements, addressing those issues and eventually removing a confidentiality provision and obtaining all required signatures.
Judge McCarthy found the final agreement, including a 33.3% payment to the plaintiff’s counsel, fair and reasonable. The court approved the agreement, dismissed the matter with prejudice, terminated the pending motion, and closed the case.
The detailed version
- San Martin v. F & M Scarsdale Pizza Corp · No. 7:22-cv-06346
- Judith McCarthy
- Feb. 20, 2024
Background
Orlando Facundo San Martin sued F & M Scarsdale Pizza Corp. and Mentor Krasniqi, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The parties submitted a second revised General Release and Settlement Agreement for court review.
Earlier Settlement Submissions
The court previously denied the parties’ settlement-approval motion on several grounds. The parties had not provided an estimate of the plaintiff’s maximum recovery or records supporting their position that his recovery under the federal wage law would be minimal. The release was also broader than the claims in the case, and the requested 40% attorney’s-fee award was found unreasonable.
The parties later submitted a revised agreement addressing those deficiencies. The court informed them that it could not approve that version because the defendants had not signed it and because it contained a nondisclosure provision. The parties then submitted the second revised agreement. That agreement was signed by all parties and did not contain a nondisclosure provision.
Court’s Analysis
The court considered whether the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable under the overall circumstances. Relevant considerations included the plaintiff’s possible recovery, the litigation expenses and burdens avoided through settlement, the risks of litigation, whether the agreement resulted from negotiation between experienced counsel, and the possibility of fraud or collusion.
The court noted that the parties engaged in early settlement discussions and sought to resolve the case before extensive discovery. Based on its review of the record and the second revised agreement, the court found that the agreement’s terms—including approval of plaintiff’s counsel’s fees in the amount of 33.3%—were a fair and reasonable resolution.
Disposition
Judge Judith C. McCarthy approved the second revised agreement and dismissed the matter with prejudice. The court also directed the Clerk to terminate the pending motion and close the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.