Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Pachay-Rodriguez v. Roosevelt Hotel Realty LLC, 18-CV-2858 (RRM) (JO). (2019)

Court: District Court, E.D. New York Number: infdco20190322e24 Visitors: 4
Filed: Mar. 15, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 15, 2019
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING SETTLEMENT ROSLYNN R. MAUSKOPF , District Judge . In May 2018, plaintiffs Freddy Pachay-Rodriguez and Ramon Rodriguez commenced this collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law, seeking to recover unpaid wages from their former employer, defendant Roosevelt Hotel Realty, LLC ("Roosevelt"), and two of its owners, defendants Rajesh and Paul Patel. The case was referred to mediation and the parties reached a settlement. On January 4, 2019,
More

ORDER ADOPTING SETTLEMENT

In May 2018, plaintiffs Freddy Pachay-Rodriguez and Ramon Rodriguez commenced this collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law, seeking to recover unpaid wages from their former employer, defendant Roosevelt Hotel Realty, LLC ("Roosevelt"), and two of its owners, defendants Rajesh and Paul Patel. The case was referred to mediation and the parties reached a settlement. On January 4, 2019, the parties filed a letter addressed to Magistrate Judge Orenstein asking the Court to "approve the parties' settlement agreement pursuant to Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2015)." (Letter to Hon. James Orenstein from C.K. Lee, Esq., dated Jan. 4, 2019 (Doc. No. 23) at 1.)

Judge Orenstein conducted two telephone conferences in which he examined all of the issues required pursuant to Cheeks. At the first conference, which took place oh January 17, 2019, Judge Orenstein declined to recommend approval of the proposed settlement without first having the opportunity to review plaintiffs' fee arrangement with their attorney. (1/17/2019 Civil Conference Minute Order (Doc. No. 24).) Several days later, plaintiffs' attorney filed a letter attaching his time records and retainer agreement. (Letter to Hon. James Orenstein from C.K. Lee, Esq., dated Jan. 23, 2019 (Doc. No. 25).) At the second conference, which took place on February 22, 2019, Judge Orenstein found the fee arrangement to be reasonable and agreed to recommend the proposed settlement to this Court. (2/22/2019 Civil Conference Minute Order (Doc. No. 26).) On the same day he entered a sua sponte report and recommendation on ECF, recommending that this Court grant the parties' January 4, 2019, request for settlement approval and giving the parties 14 days to object. (2/22/2019 ECF Order.) No party has objected, and the 14-day period has now ended.

Having reviewed both the settlement agreement and Judge Orenstein's analysis de novo, and finding no error, this Court agrees with Judge Orenstein that the settlement agreement meets the requisites of Cheeks. As such, the settlement is approved.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth herein, the Court adopts the February 22, 2019, recommendation of Magistrate Judge Orenstein, and approves the settlement agreement filed on January 4, 2019 (Doc. No. 23-1). As the parties have settled this action, the Clerk of Court is hereby directed to close the file.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer