Mendez v. Parkway Coffee Shop, Inc.
- Judith McCarthy
- 7:22-cv-09575
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Mendez v. Parkway Coffee Shop, Judge McCarthy approved the revised wage settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice.
The three plaintiffs, Parkway Coffee Shop, Inc., Nicolas Cucolo, Andrew Cucolo, and Robert A. Cucolo were affected by the approved settlement and dismissal. Plaintiffs’ counsel’s fees were also addressed.
What happened
Mendez v. Parkway Coffee Shop, Inc. involved claims by Martimiano Santiago Mendez, Jennifer Donoso, and David Hernandez Garcia that the defendants violated federal and New York wage laws. The parties later submitted a settlement for court review.
The court initially found that the proposed agreement did not state how much each plaintiff would receive. The parties submitted a revised agreement that supplied those amounts, and the court found that the parties had negotiated it at arm’s length with the help of a mediator and settlement conferences.
Judge McCarthy approved the revised agreement as a fair and reasonable resolution, including plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees equal to one-third of the total settlement amount. The court dismissed the matter with prejudice, directed the clerk to close the case, and retained limited jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement.
The detailed version
- Mendez v. Parkway Coffee Shop, Inc. · No. 7:22-cv-09575
- Judith McCarthy
- May 14, 2024
Background
Martimiano Santiago Mendez brought the action against Parkway Coffee Shop, Inc., doing business as The Parkway Cafe, Nicolas Cucolo, and Andrew Cucolo. The claims alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Jennifer Donoso and David Hernandez Garcia later consented to become party plaintiffs. The plaintiffs then filed a first amended complaint adding Robert A. Cucolo as a defendant.
Settlement Review
The parties submitted a settlement agreement and release of claims for court review, along with a joint supporting letter and records of attorneys’ time, hourly rates, tasks, and costs. The court’s April 9, 2024 order found that the original agreement did not state the dollar amount each named plaintiff would receive. The parties then submitted a revised agreement that clearly stated each plaintiff’s payment.
The court applied the factors used to evaluate whether a wage-law settlement is fair and reasonable, including the plaintiffs’ possible recovery, the burdens and expenses of continuing the case, litigation risks, whether the agreement resulted from arm’s-length negotiations between experienced counsel, and the possibility of fraud or collusion. The court noted that the parties had engaged in contentious negotiations, met with a mediator once, and attended two settlement conferences before the court. It found that the revised agreement resulted from arm’s-length negotiations between capable counsel and that its terms were fair and reasonable. The court also approved plaintiffs’ counsel’s fee of one-third of the total settlement amount. Plaintiffs’ counsel waived $1,584 in costs.
Ruling
The court approved the revised settlement agreement and dismissed the matter with prejudice. It directed the clerk to close the case but retained jurisdiction for the limited purpose of enforcing the settlement agreement.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.