Ramirez v. Marriott International, Inc.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK HUMBERTO RAMIREZ, Plaintiff, ORDER -against- 20-CV-02397 (PMH) MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL INC., et al., Defendants.

PHILIP M. HALPERN, United States District Judge: WHEREAS, Plaintiff Humberto Ramirez (“Ramirez”) filed a Second Amended Complaint on July 9, 2020 as Class Representative (Doc. 32), alleging that Defendants violated, inter alia, the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) by failing to pay Plaintiffs overtime wages and compensation (Doc. 32); WHEREAS, Plaintiff Michael Boateng (“Boateng”) filed a corrected consent to join the lawsuit as an opt-in Plaintiff on May 25, 2021 (Doc. 66); WHEREAS, the parties filed on May 27 2022, a letter informing the Court that a

settlement in principal had been reached to fully resolve all claims in the action (Doc. 124); WHEREAS, the parties filed on September 1, 2022, a joint motion seeking approval of a proposed settlement agreement governing Plaintiffs’ FLSA claims (Doc. 133; Doc. 133-1); WHEREAS, the proposed settlement agreement filed on September 1, 2022 contained provisions at § 4.1 and § 5.4 that the Court declined to approve, the Court denied the parties’ motion without prejudice on September 8, 2022 (Doc. 134); WHEREAS, the Court ordered that, pursuant to § 3.4(B) of the parties’ proposed settlement agreement, it would consider Plaintiffs’ counsel’s application for attorneys’ fees separately from any substitute motion for approval of the settlement (Id. at 2); WHEREAS, the parties filed a substitute joint motion seeking approval of the proposed settlement agreement on October 21, 2022 (Doc. 135); WHEREAS, the parties’ substitute motion and proposed addendum to the settlement agreement alleviated the Court’s concerns with respect to the provisions at § 4.1 and § 5.4 (Id.,

Doc. 135-2); WHEREAS, the Court remains intent upon, pursuant to § 3.4(B) of the parties’ proposed settlement agreement, considering Plaintiff’s counsel’s application for attorney’s fees separately; WHEREAS, having reviewed the proposed settlement agreement as corrected by the parties’ proposed Addendum (together, the “Proposed FLSA Settlement Agreement”) (Doc. 135- 1, Doc. 135-2) and related submissions, the Court finds, pursuant to Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2015), that the Proposed FLSA Settlement Agreement, except to the extent it relates to attorneys’ fees, is fair and reasonable; WHEREAS, Plaintiff’s counsel’s application for attorneys’ fees is sub judice; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the request to approve the Proposed FLSA Settlement

Agreement, except to the extent is relates to attorneys’ fees, is GRANTED.

SO ORDERED: Dated: White Plains, New York November 1, 2022 PHILIP M. HALPERN United States District Judge