20-3453

Helwing v. Michalow

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY 

ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF 

APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER 

IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN 

ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY 

ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. 

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 

2 held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 

New York, on the 28th 3 day of October, two thousand twenty-one.

4

5 PRESENT:

6 JON O. NEWMAN,

7 MICHAEL H. PARK,

8 EUNICE C. LEE,

9 Circuit Judges.

10 _____________________________________

11

12 TOMASZ HELWING,

13

14 Plaintiff-Appellant,

15

16

17 v. 20-3453

18

19 DARIUSZ MICHALOW, SEBASTIAN 

20 TKACZYK, WILLIAM GONZALEZ, for 

21 themselves and others similarly situated who 

22 were employed by East Coast Restoration & 

23 Consulting Corp., Midtown Restoration, Inc., 

24 East Coast Installation & Consulting Corp., East 

25 Coast Restoration & Construction Consulting 

26 Corp.,

27

28 Plaintiffs-Appellees,

29

30
1 EAST COAST RESTORATION & 

2 CONSULTING CORP., et al.,

3

 Defendants-Appellees.

1 4

5

6 _____________________________________

7

8

9 FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Tomasz Helwing, pro se, 

10 Howard Beach, NY.

11

12 FOR PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES: LaDonna M. Lusher, Jenny 

13 S. Brejt, Virginia & 

14 Ambinder, LLP, New York, 

15 NY.

16

17 FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: Michael M. Rabinowitz, 

18 Rabinowitz & Galina, 

19 Mineola, NY; James A. 

20 Randazzo, Drew W. Sumner, 

21 Portale Randazzo LLP, White 

22 Plains, NY.

23

24 Appeal from an order and judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern 

25 District of New York (Matsumoto, J.).

26 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 

27 DECREED that the order and judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

28 Appellant Tomasz Helwing, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s order and 

29 judgment approving a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act collective action and New York 

30 Labor Law class action. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the 

31 procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

32 A class action settlement must be “fair, reasonable, and adequate.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

33 23(e)(2). We review a district court’s “factual findings relating to a settlement agreement in a 

1 The Clerk is respectfully directed to amend the caption accordingly.
3

1 class action lawsuit under the clearly erroneous standard of review,” review its interpretation of 

2 law de novo, and review its “determination that a settlement in a class action . . . is fair, reasonable, 

3 and adequate” for abuse of discretion. McReynolds v. Richards-Cantave, 588 F.3d 790, 800 (2d 

4 Cir. 2009) (cleaned up). 

5 Here, our review of the record and relevant case law reveals no error in the district court’s 

6 decision to approve the settlement. We affirm for substantially the reasons stated by the district 

7 court on the record at the fairness hearing.

8 We have considered all of Helwing’s arguments and find them to be without merit. 

9 Helwing failed to present admissible evidence that any of the parties to the settlement, or their 

10 attorneys, violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act or otherwise engaged 

11 in unethical conduct. Additionally, the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act does not apply to 

12 this case, and Helwing has not demonstrated that the settlement should have been rejected for any 

13 other reason. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

14 FOR THE COURT: 

15 Catherine O=Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court

16