Court Opinion

ID: 9962549
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-23 20:10:37.601077+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:01.372766
License: Public Domain

Perez v Anejo, LLC
               2024 NY Slip Op 31295(U)
                     April 15, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 150980/2020
                  Judge: Paul A. Goetz
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
 Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
 State and local government sources, including the New
  York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
 This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
                       publication.
                                                                                                                      INDEX NO. 150980/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 266                                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/15/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. PAUL A. GOETZ                                               PART                              47
                                                                                      Justice
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X    INDEX NO.          150980/2020
             AMANDO PEREZ,
                                                                                                  MOTION DATE         01/17/2024
                                                         Plaintiff,
                                                                                                  MOTION SEQ. NO.         012
                                                 -v-
             ANEJO, LLC, ANEJO TRIBECA, LLC, DAVID FEIT,
             ANGELO SOSA, JOHN PAUL VALENTI, JOHN A. DIEHL,                                         DECISION + ORDER ON
             RICARDO CAMACHO, CHARLIE DOE                                                                 MOTION
                                                         Defendants.
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 012) 257, 258, 259, 260,
            261, 262, 263
            were read on this motion to/for                                                      MISCELLANEOUS                      .

                      In this class action, brought on behalf of restaurant workers who were employed by

            defendant, commenced to recover, inter alia, unpaid minimum wages, plaintiffs move

            unopposed for final approval of the parties’ settlement agreement. After engaging in numerous

            mediation sessions and settlement negotiations, the parties executed a settlement and release

            agreement on August 4, 2023 to resolve the case for $240,000 (NYSCEF Doc No 260). By

            decision and order dated December 1, 2023, the court preliminarily approved the settlement,

            conditionally certified the settlement class, and the proposed notice of settlement (NYSCEF Doc

            No 256). Pursuant to the December 1, 2023 order, plaintiffs’ counsel caused a claims

            administrator to mail the notice of settlement to each of the 319 class members for whom contact

            details had been provided by defendants. Approximately 283 received notice and 36 class

            members may not have received notices. No class members opted out of or objected to the

            settlement. Plaintiffs now seek final approval of the proposed settlement agreement.

             150980/2020 PEREZ, AMANDO vs. ANEJO, LLC                                                                 Page 1 of 5
             Motion No. 012

                                                                           1 of 5
[* 1]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 150980/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 266                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/15/2024

                   Pursuant to CPLR § 908, court approval is required for any compromise of a class action.

            A court may approve the settlement of a class action only if the proposed settlement is fair,

            adequate, reasonable and in the best interest of class members (Gordon v Verizon Commcs., 148

            AD3d 146, 156 [1st Dept 2017]). This review must consider the following factors: the likelihood

            of success, the extent of support from the parties, the judgment of counsel, the presence of

            bargaining in good faith, and the nature of the issues of law and fact (id., citing In re Cold Indus

            Shareholder Litig. v Cold Indus., 155 AD2d 154, 160 [1st Dept 1990]). Approval is appropriate

            when “the proposed settlement appears to be the product of serious, informed, non-collusive

            negotiations, has no obvious deficiencies, does not improperly grant preferential treatment to

            class representatives or segments of the class and falls within the range of possible approval” (In

            re Initial Pub. Offerings Sec. Litig., 226 FRD 186, 191 [SDNY 2005]).

                   Here, the parties, through experienced and competent counsel, engaged in extensive

            litigation and arms-length negotiations before arriving at this proposed settlement. The final

            settlement fund will provide the significant benefit of immediate payment to impacted class

            members. Further, continued litigation in this matter poses significant risks to the class in

            establishing both liability and damages, and resolution would depend on the determination of

            complex factual and legal issues. All parties fully support the settlement and plaintiffs’ counsel

            recommends approval based upon their experience and detailed knowledge of the strengths and

            weaknesses of the case. Finally, though 36 class members may not have received notice, “[i]t is

            widely recognized that for the due process standard to be met it is not necessary that every class

            member receive actual notice, so long as class counsel acted reasonably in selecting means likely

            to inform persons affected,” and counsel did act reasonably in mailing the notice as directed by

            the court’s December 1, 2023 order (In re Prudential Securities Inc. Ltd. Partnerships Litig., 164

             150980/2020 PEREZ, AMANDO vs. ANEJO, LLC                                              Page 2 of 5
             Motion No. 012

                                                          2 of 5
[* 2]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 150980/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 266                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/15/2024

            FRD 362, 368 [SDNY 1996] [citing Weigner v The City of New York, 852 F2d 646, 649 [2d Cir

            1988]]).

            Awards, Fees, and Costs

                   Counsel for the class seeks an award of $80,000 in fees, which constitutes one third of the

            gross settlement fund, plus $10,232.39 in costs. Pursuant to CPLR § 909, fees are awarded

            “based on the reasonable value of legal services rendered.” The fees sought are reasonable in

            light of the ultimate benefit to the class, the complexity of the facts and law, the amount of time

            spent litigating and settling this action, and that the case was taken on a contingency fee basis

            (Gilliam v Addicts Rehab. Ctr. Fund, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23016, 5 [SDNY 2008] [granting

            one-third of the settlement fund]; Sheridan v Police Pension Fund, Art. 2, 76 AD2d 800 [1st

            Dept 1980] [factors to consider include risks of litigation, standing of counsel, complexity of the

            case, and amount recovered]).

                   The service award of $12,500 to the named plaintiff is reasonable, given the risk he

            undertook in bringing this action on behalf of the class, as well as the significant amount of time

            he invested by providing detailed factual information and relevant documents, participating in

            litigation and mediation, and assisting in the settlement process (Hernandez v Merrill Lynch &

            Co., Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42681 [SDNY 2013] [approving service awards of $15,000 and

            $12,500 to class representatives in wage and hour action]; Silva v Little Fish Corp., 2012 U.S.

            Dist. LEXIS 89485, *8 [SDNY 2012] [approving $15,000 service fee based on plaintiff’s efforts

            on behalf of the class]).

                   Finally, the claims administrator fee of $28,500 is reasonable in light of the logistical

            support that has been and will continue to be undertaken, including calculating class liability,

            serving notice of settlement to class members, corresponding with counsel regarding results,

             150980/2020 PEREZ, AMANDO vs. ANEJO, LLC                                              Page 3 of 5
             Motion No. 012

                                                          3 of 5
[* 3]
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 150980/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 266                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/15/2024

            mailing settlement checks, and finalizing all matters related to settlement (Mills v Capital One,

            2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133530, *48 [SDNY 2015] [“No class member objected to the fee []

            sought by the claims administrator of $23,000 [which] is reasonable and is approved”]; Henry v

            Little Mint, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72574, *4 [SDNY 2014] [approving administrator fee of

            $34,000]; Sali v Zwanger & Pesiri Radiology Group, LLP, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48699, *39

            [EDNY 2022] [“the Court notes from experience that the cost of sending notice and

            administering the claims could well exceed $20,000”]).

                   Accordingly, it is

                   ORDERED that the motion for final approval of the settlement is granted and the

            settlement is approved based on the determination that the settlement as set forth in the

            settlement agreement is fair and reasonable; and it is further

                   ORDERED that the class members and named plaintiffs release all claims against

            defendant relating to the class action as set forth in the settlement agreement; and it is further

                   ORDERED that class counsel’s attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $90,232.39 is

            approved and awarded to class counsel, service fee of $12,500 for the named plaintiff is

            approved and awarded to him, and the claims administration fee in the amount of $28,500 is

            approved and awarded to the claims administrator; and it is further

                   ORDERED that the court retains jurisdiction over this action for the purposes of

            enforcing the settlement agreement, and the parties shall abide by all the terms of the settlement

            agreement which are incorporated herein; and it is further

                   ORDERED that the case is dismissed with prejudice according to the terms of the

             150980/2020 PEREZ, AMANDO vs. ANEJO, LLC                                               Page 4 of 5
             Motion No. 012

                                                           4 of 5
[* 4]
                                                                                                INDEX NO. 150980/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 266                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/15/2024

                   settlement agreement and the Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.

                   4/15/2024
                     DATE                                                      PAUL A. GOETZ, J.S.C.
            CHECK ONE:               X   CASE DISPOSED                NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                     X   GRANTED             DENIED   GRANTED IN PART             OTHER

            APPLICATION:                 SETTLE ORDER                 SUBMIT ORDER

            CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:        INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN   FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT       REFERENCE

            150980/2020 PEREZ, AMANDO vs. ANEJO, LLC                                            Page 5 of 5
            Motion No. 012

                                                          5 of 5
[* 5]