Marquez v. Rosebox LLC
- Stewart Aaron
- 1:23-cv-08171
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Marquez v. Rosebox, Judge Aaron approved the parties’ Fair Labor Standards Act settlement and dismissed the action with prejudice.
The plaintiff and the defendants are affected by approval of the revised settlement, dismissal of the action with prejudice, and the court’s continuing authority to enforce the settlement agreement.
What happened
In Marquez v. Rosebox LLC, the parties reached a settlement after a court settlement conference concerning claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The court reviewed a revised settlement agreement and additional information about the agreement and attorney-fee arrangement.
The court found the settlement fair and reasonable and found no concerns about the release or confidentiality provisions. It also approved $5,841.33 in attorney fees and $476 in costs, concluding that the fees and costs were reasonable.
Judge Stewart D. Aaron approved the revised settlement, dismissed the action with prejudice and without costs except as provided in the settlement, retained jurisdiction to enforce the agreement, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
The detailed version
- Marquez v. Rosebox LLC · No. 1:23-cv-08171
- Stewart Aaron
- Mar. 13, 2024
Background
The plaintiff brought this action individually and on behalf of others similarly situated. The opinion states that the case included one or more claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), a federal law governing certain wage and hour protections. The parties reached a settlement at a January 17, 2024 settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron and later consented to have all proceedings before him.
The court required the parties to submit the settlement agreement and explain why it was fair, reasonable, and adequate under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., which requires judicial review of many FLSA settlements. After reviewing the initial materials, the court required a further joint submission about the scope of the release. The parties then filed a revised settlement agreement, and the plaintiff filed supplemental materials including the retainer agreement.
Court’s Analysis
The court found the revised settlement fair and reasonable in light of the nature and scope of the plaintiff’s claims and the risks and expenses of further litigation. It also found that the settlement did not raise other concerns identified in Cheeks, including overbroad releases or restrictive confidentiality provisions.
The settlement requested $5,841.33 in attorney fees and $476 in costs. The fee represented one-third of the settlement amount after costs under a contingency-fee agreement. The court found the contingency-fee agreement reasonable and the requested fees consistent with that agreement. It also found the requested costs reasonable, including $402 in filing fees and $74 for service of process. The opinion notes that an earlier joint letter incorrectly listed the fee as $6,317.33, but correctly listed $5,841.33 in its fee and expense summary.
Disposition
The court approved the revised settlement. It dismissed the action with prejudice and without costs except as provided in the revised settlement agreement. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement and requested that the Clerk of Court close the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.