Source: http://ny.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180727_0001754.SNY.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 00:24:26+00:00

Document:
YITZCHECK HOROWITZ, DANIEL GOLDSTEIN, LEIBEL LEDERMAN, ARYEH Z. GINZBERG, IRVING LANGER, E&M ASSOCIATES LLC, 22 PEARSALL, LLC, 295 WEST 150 LGL ASSOCIATES L.P., STAFFPRO, INC., STAFFLGL, LLC, Defendants.
Currently pending before the Court is a proposed settlement agreement. (ECF No. 26.) For the reasons stated below, the Court hereby APPROVES the settlement set forth therein.
On October 31, 2017, Juan Carlos Batista commenced this action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., and the New York Labor Law (“NYLL”), § 190 et seq. and § 650 et seq. (See generally Compl., ECF No. 1.) The Complaint alleges, in sum, that defendants: (1) failed to pay plaintiffs the requisite minimum hourly rate; (2) failed to pay plaintiffs the statutorily required overtime compensation; and (3) failed to provide plaintiffs with the required notices/wage statements.
On July 13, 2018, the Court received notice that plaintiff in this action had accepted an offer of judgment for $75, 000. (ECF No. 26.) Plaintiff's counsel made a fairness submission regarding that accepted offer pursuant to Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2015). (ECF No. 26.) The Court ordered plaintiff's counsel to file any retainer agreement, (ECF No. 27); plaintiff's counsel did so on July 18, 2018, (ECF No. 28).
The FLSA and its case law protects employees from being coerced into settling claims by requiring that a settlement either be supervised by the Secretary of Labor or be made pursuant to a judicially supervised settlement agreement. Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199, 206 (2d Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 136 S.Ct. 824 (2016). Before the Court enters judgment on a settlement agreement, “the parties must satisfy the Court that their agreement is ‘fair and reasonable.'” Santos v. Yellowstone Properties, Inc., No. 15-cv-3986, 2016 WL 2757427, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. May 10, 2016) (quoting Velasquez v. SAFI-G, Inc., 137 F.Supp.3d 582, 584 (S.D.N.Y. 2015)).
(1) the plaintiffs range of possible recovery; (2) the extent to which “the settlement will enable the parties to avoid anticipated burdens and expenses in establishing their respective claims and defenses;” (3) the seriousness of the litigation risks faced by the parties; (4) whether “the settlement agreement is the product of arm's-length bargaining between experienced counsel, ” and (5) the possibility of fraud or collusion.
Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc., 900 F.Supp.2d 332, 335 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (quoting Medley v. Am. Cancer Soc., No. 10-cv-3214, 2010 WL 3000028, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 23, 2010) (other citations omitted)).

References: § 201
 § 190
 § 650
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.