Morales Mariano v. R.A. Cohen & Associates, Inc.
- Robert Lehrburger
- 1:23-cv-06628
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Morales Mariano v. R.A. Cohen, Judge Lehrburger approved the FLSA settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice.
Eduardo Morales Mariano and R.A. Cohen & Associates, Inc.; the approved settlement resolved the entire case.
What happened
Eduardo Morales Mariano sued R.A. Cohen & Associates, Inc. for damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The parties jointly asked the court to approve their settlement.
The court reviewed the agreement and considered the risks and costs of continuing the case, possible recovery, the bargaining process, attorney fees, and the possibility of fraud or collusion. It found the settlement fair and reasonable, noting that it had no confidentiality or non-disparagement provisions, that the release was appropriately limited, and that the attorney fees were acceptable.
Judge Robert W. Lehrburger approved the settlement. He dismissed and discontinued the entire case with prejudice, without costs or fees to either party except as provided in the settlement agreement, and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate motions and deadlines and close the case.
The detailed version
- Morales Mariano v. R.A. Cohen & Associates, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-06628
- Robert Lehrburger
- May 22, 2024
Background
Eduardo Morales Mariano brought an action for damages against R.A. Cohen & Associates, Inc. under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law governing minimum wages, overtime, and related employment protections, and the New York Labor Law. The parties submitted a joint request for approval of their settlement agreement, along with a fully executed copy filed on May 16, 2024.
Settlement Review
The court explained that a federal court must determine whether an agreement settling a Fair Labor Standards Act case is fair, reasonable, and the product of arm’s-length negotiations rather than employer overreaching. The court reviewed the settlement agreement and the parties’ letter, considering the prior proceedings, the risks, burdens, and costs of continuing the case, the possible recovery, whether the agreement resulted from arm’s-length bargaining, the attorney fees, and the possibility of fraud or collusion.
The court also noted that the agreement contained no confidentiality restrictions or non-disparagement provisions, included an appropriately tailored release, and provided attorney fees within a fair, reasonable, and acceptable range. The court found the settlement fair and reasonable and approved it.
Correction to the Agreement
The court identified a non-material error in Paragraph 3(g), which referred to consent before Magistrate Judge Aaron. The consent filed by the parties and approved by the court instead provided for resolution of the remainder of the case by a magistrate judge generally, rather than by a specifically named magistrate judge. The court ruled that this error did not affect the agreement’s validity or enforceability.
Disposition
Judge Robert W. Lehrburger ordered that the case, having been resolved by settlement, be dismissed and discontinued in its entirety, with prejudice, without costs or fees to any party except as provided in the settlement agreement. The Clerk of Court was requested to terminate all motions and deadlines and close the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.