Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 25, 2024

Morales Campos v. Up Thai Corp.

Judge
Figueredo
Docket
1:19-cv-04730
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
FlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Morales Campos v. Up Thai Corp., Judge Figueredo again declined to approve the FLSA settlement because the parties did not show each plaintiff’s recovery.

Who this affects

The named plaintiffs, the defendants, and plaintiffs’ counsel are affected. The settlement was not approved at this time, and the parties must provide additional information about each plaintiff’s damages and recovery.

What happened

Morales Campos v. Up Thai Corp. is a wage-and-hour case under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The parties asked Judge Valerie Figueredo to approve their proposed settlement, but the court had previously requested more information before deciding whether the agreement was fair and reasonable.

The revised submission explained and supported a request for $8,720 in attorneys’ fees, which the court found reasonable. But it still did not state each plaintiff’s estimated total damages or the amount each plaintiff would receive under the settlement. The damages chart showed amounts sought from the defendants, not the final recovery for each plaintiff under the agreement.

Judge Figueredo therefore did not approve the settlement at this time. She ordered the parties to submit a joint letter addressing the missing information by May 16, 2024.

The detailed version

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

Case
Morales Campos v. Up Thai Corp. · No. 1:19-cv-04730
Judge
Figueredo
Date
Apr. 25, 2024

Background

The plaintiffs brought this wage-and-hour case under the Fair Labor Standards Act against Up Thai Corp., doing business as Tung Thong 181, and Jirapat Puttana Wong. The parties consented to the jurisdiction of Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo to review their proposed settlement. They first submitted a settlement for approval, but the court requested additional information about each plaintiff’s estimated damages, each plaintiff’s settlement payment, and the reasonableness of the proposed $32,980 in attorneys’ fees.

Revised Settlement Submission

The parties later submitted a revised settlement agreement. Plaintiffs’ counsel reduced the requested attorneys’ fees to $8,720 and provided billing records showing the rates charged, hours worked, and tasks performed. The court found that fee request reasonable because it was less than one-third of the settlement amount and substantially lower than the earlier request.

The revised submission did not, however, state each plaintiff’s estimated total damages or the amount each plaintiff would receive under the settlement. The submission included a damages chart, but the parties explained that it reflected the plaintiffs’ original damages demand, which the defendants disputed. The chart did not show each plaintiff’s ultimate recovery under the settlement.

Ruling

The court stated that it could not approve the proposed settlement without information showing each plaintiff’s possible damages and settlement payment. Judge Figueredo therefore did not approve the settlement at that time and directed the parties to submit a joint letter addressing this issue by May 16, 2024. The order did not make a final determination about the fairness of the settlement.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-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.