Chitic Cua v. Gochujang LLC

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedJuly 12, 2022
Docket1:20-cv-07735
StatusUnknown

This text of Chitic Cua v. Gochujang LLC (Chitic Cua v. Gochujang LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Chitic Cua v. Gochujang LLC, (S.D.N.Y. 2022).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK wee eK Chitic Cua et al., Plaintiffs, 20 CIVIL 7735 (JSR) -against- JUDGMENT Gochujang LLC et al., Defendants, we KX

It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Memo Endorsed Order dated July 11, 2022, the settlement is approved, including requested attorney’s fees and costs; (see attached Order, ECF No. 72). Dated: New York, New York July 12, 2022

RUBY J. KRAJICK Clerk of Court BY: K Marge Deputy Clerk

CSM Legal, P.C. Employment and Litigation Attorneys

60 B 42nd Street, Suite 4510 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 New York, New York 10165 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620

July 7, 2022 VIA ECF Honorable Judge Jed S. Rakoff er (- United States District Judge ones, Eel — ood & □□ _ aval #ortz. United States District Court G.. ere at. Southern District of New York Ch. & & "8 Bd teh 500 Pearl St. To 27 df New York, N.Y. 10007 ——__ tA Ee

Re: Chitic Cua v. Mama’s K-Food Inc. et al, 20-cv-7735 Your Honor: This office represents the Plaintiff in the above referenced matter. Plaintiff writes, jointly with-Defendants as to Section I below, to submit this letter setting forth our views on why the Court should approve the agreed-upon settlement pursuant to Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2015). The parties have agreed to a negotiated settlement agreement (“the Agreement”) after extensive settlement discussions. A Countersigned copy of the Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Plaintiff alleges that he was employed by Defendants at Defendants’ Korean restaurant. Plaintiff brought this suit alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. (“FLSA”), violations of the New York Labor Law §§ 190 et seq. and 650 et seq. (the “NYLL”). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants engaged in numerous violations of the FLSA and NYLL, including failure to pay appropriate minimum and overtime wages and failure to provide statutorily-required wage statements and wage notices. Defendants have denied these allegations and assert several affirmative defenses. I. The Proposed Settlement is Fair and Reasonable Under the Agreement, Defendants will pay $27,500.00 to settle all claims. This settlement amount will be paid in one single payment. Payment will be made within 10 calendar days of the Court’s approval of the Agreement. Payment shall consist of two checks, one check made payable to Plaintiff Tomas Chitic Cua and the other check will be made payable to “CSM Legal, P.C.” The actual amount that Plaintiff would be entitled to depends on multiple factors, including the hours he worked and the method by which he was paid — facts that are heavily disputed between the parties. A calculation of his damages based on the Defendants’ documents and Plaintiffs’ recollections indicates he would be entitled to approximately $38,000.00 in back wages and approximately $150,00.00 if liquidated damages, statutory penalties, and prejudgment interest were he to fully prevail on his claims. A copy of Plaintiff's damages chart, breaking down each amount sought from Defendants, is attached hereto as Exhibit B.

Certified as a minoritv-owned business in the State of New York

JULY /, 2U42 Page 2

Under Lynn’s Food, a court may approve a settlement where it “reflects a ‘reasonable compromise of disputed issues [rather] than a mere waiver of statutory rights brought about by an employer’s overreaching.” Le v. Sita Information Networking Computing USA, Inc., No. 07 Civ. 0086, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46174 at *2 (E.D.N.Y. June 12, 2008) (quoting Lynn ’s Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1354 (11th Cir. 1982)); see also Kopera v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., No. 09 Civ. 8337, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71816, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. June 24, 2011) (Tf the proposed settlement reflects a reasonable compromise over contested issues, the settlement should be approved”).

_ Throughout the litigation, there were sharply contested factual and legal disputes that went to the heart of Plaintiff's claims. Significantly, Defendants vigorously contested all of Plaintiffs substantive allegations, contesting the number of hours allegedly worked by Plaintiff and the method by which his wages were determined. Considering the risks in this case outlined above, Plaintiff believes that this settlement is fair and should be approved. See Meigel v. Flowers of the World, NYC, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2359, at *2-3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 9, 2012) (“Typically, courts regard the adversarial nature ofa litigated FLSA case to be an adequate indicator of the fairness of the settlement. If the proposed settlement reflects a reasonable compromise over contested issues, the court should approve the settlement.”). Il. Plaintiff's Attorneys’ Fees are Fair and Reasonable Under the settlement agreement, Plaintiff's counsel will receive $5,280.00 from the settlement fund as attorneys’ fees and costs. This represents thirty-three percent of the Settlement Amount and a reduction in fees from the Plaintiffs retainer agreement. The lodestar in this case, as reflected on the invoice attached hereto as Exhibit C, is $11,646,50 plus $675.00 in costs. The amount provided to Plaintiff's counsel under the settlement is fair and reasonable and well within the range of fees typically awarded in cases in this Circuit. See Castaneda v. My Belly’s Playlist LLC, No. 15 Civ. 1324 (JCF) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2015) (Francis, M.J.) (awarding the plaintiffs’ attorneys a contingency fee of one-third to account for risks in litigation); see also Calle v. Elite Specialty Coatings Plus, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164069 at *9 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 19, 2014) (“A one-third contingency fee is a commonly accepted fee in this Circuit.”). In light of the nature of the issues herein, and the extensive negotiations necessary to reach the agreed-upon settlement, Plaintiff's requested award is reasonable. See Alleyne v. Time Moving & Storage Inc., 264 F.R.D. at 60; see also McDaniel v. City. of Schenectady, 595 F.3d 411, 417 (2d Cir. 2010). Below is a brief biography of individuals who performed billed work on behalf of Plaintiff in this matter, including the effective billable rate which the parties’ request that the Court apply should the Court undertake a “lodestar analysis of the fairness of such fees (see, e.g, Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens Neighborhood Assoc. v. County of Albany, 493 F. 3d 110 (2d Cir. 2007): 1. Michael Faillace, Esq. (“MF”), was the Managing Member of Michael Faillace & Associates, P.C., predecessor firm to CSM Legal, and was in

July /, 2022 Page 3

practice from 1983 to 2021.! From 1983 to 2000, he was in-house Employment Counsel with International Business Machines Corporation (IBM). He taught employment antidiscrimination law as an Adjunct Professor at Fordham University School of Law beginning in 1992 and at Seton Hall University Law School from 1995 to 1998, and he is a nationally-renowned speaker and writer on employment law. He is also the author of the ADA, Disability Law Deskbook: The Americans with Disabilities Act in the Workplace, published by Practicing Law Institute (PLT), and other employment law publications and presentations. His work was billed at the rate of $450 per hour, his standard billing rate for matters paid on an hourly basis. Courts have routinely held that hourly fees of $450, or even $500, for counsel with Mr. Faillace’s level of experience (37 years) and expertise are reasonable. See, e.g., Manley v. Midan Rest. Inc., No. 1:14-cv-1369 (S.D.N.Y. March 27, 2017), Doc. No.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

McDaniel v. County of Schenectady
595 F.3d 411 (Second Circuit, 2010)
Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc.
796 F.3d 199 (Second Circuit, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Chitic Cua v. Gochujang LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chitic-cua-v-gochujang-llc-nysd-2022.