Velez v. S.T.A. Parking Corp.
- Analisa Torres
- 1:23-cv-04786
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
Velez v. S.T.A. Parking Corp.: Judge Torres approved the parties’ revised wage-settlement agreement and granted counsel’s $10,000 fee request.
The named plaintiffs, the defendants, and plaintiffs’ counsel are directly affected. The court-approved settlement resolves the wage claims described in the opinion, and the case is closed.
What happened
In Velez v. S.T.A. Parking Corp., the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants failed to pay overtime wages under federal and New York law. After two earlier settlement proposals were rejected, the parties submitted a second revised agreement for approval.
The court found the revised settlement fair and reasonable, including its narrower release of wage-related claims connected to the plaintiffs’ employment. The court also approved the requested $10,000 in attorney’s fees, which represented one-third of the federal wage settlement amount.
Judge Analisa Torres granted the renewed motion, directed the clerk to terminate pending motions and cancel conferences, and closed the case.
The detailed version
- Velez v. S.T.A. Parking Corp. · No. 1:23-cv-04786
- Analisa Torres
- Mar. 5, 2024
Background
Noel Velez, Efrain Echevarria, Ariel Burgos, Jose Urbano, and Abdel Chabur brought claims against S.T.A. Parking Corp., PPS 77 LLC, Michael Zacharias, and Kathleen McLeod. They alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the federal law governing minimum wages and overtime, and the New York Labor Law based on alleged failures to pay overtime wages.
The parties reached a settlement and sought court approval. The court denied the original settlement motion without prejudice to renewal on December 14, 2023. It later denied the parties’ first renewed motion without prejudice to renewal on February 12, 2024.
Court’s analysis
The court reviewed the second revised settlement under the requirement that a Fair Labor Standards Act settlement be fair and reasonable. It had previously found that the settlement satisfied the relevant fairness factors, including the parties’ possible recovery, the burdens and expenses of continued litigation, litigation risks, arm’s-length negotiations by experienced counsel, and the possibility of fraud or collusion. The court found that the second revised settlement was materially unchanged on those issues and remained fair and reasonable.
The court had previously rejected the liability-release provision as too broad. The earlier version released the defendants and numerous entities described as tenuously affiliated with them from claims concerning unpaid or improperly paid wages. The second revised settlement narrowed the release to claims brought in this action and claims concerning unpaid or improperly paid wages connected to the plaintiffs’ employment with the defendants. It also limited the released parties to the defendants, a successor corporate entity, and entities directly related to them. The agreement additionally included a mutual release benefiting the plaintiffs. The court found the revised release fair and reasonable.
The plaintiffs’ counsel requested $10,000 in attorney’s fees and costs, equal to one-third of the federal wage settlement amount. The court stated that it had already found this request fair and reasonable.
Ruling
Judge Torres approved the second revised settlement as fair and reasonable and granted plaintiffs’ counsel’s request for attorney’s fees. The court granted the parties’ renewed motion for settlement approval, directed the clerk to terminate pending motions and vacate conferences, and closed the case.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.