MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER Plaintiff Florencio Gil Aguilar brings this action against Defendants N & A Productions Inc., McGees’s Bar & Grill, Inc., Peter Fitzpatrick, Thomas F. Dwyer, Colleen Dwyer, Francis J. McCawley, John Bernard Doherty, Kenneth Gerard Keating, Padraig Dwyer, and Sean Dwyer (collectively, “Defendants”) for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and the New York Labor Law (“NYLL”). Before the Court is the parties’ application for approval of a proposed settlement agreement (“Agreement”). Having reviewed the parties’ proposed Agreement and fairness letter, the Court finds the settlement amount and attorney’s fees fair and reasonable. However, the Court cannot approve of the Agreement with its present release of claims. A. Settlement Amount To determine whether a proposed settlement is fair and reasonable, courts consider the “totality of circumstances.” Penafiel v. Rincon Ecuatoriano, Inc., No. 15-CV-112 (PAE), 2015 WL 7736551, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2015). Relevant factors include “(1) the plaintiff’s 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, 335-36 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). Because the Court is “not in as good a position as the parties to determine the reasonableness of an FLSA settlement,” there is a “strong presumption in favor of finding a settlement fair.” Lliguichuzhca v. Cinema 60, LLC, 948 F. Supp. 2d 362, 365 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). Under the Agreement, Defendants agree to pay Plaintiff $40,000. See Agreement 2(a). After deducting attorney’s fees, Plaintiff will receive $26,666.67. See id. 2(b). Plaintiff estimates that he is entitled to $272,293.97 in unpaid wages, and, if he were to recover in full for his claims, $657,303.94 in “actual damages, penalties, and interest.”1 Fairness Letter at 2. As an initial matter, Plaintiff’s full recovery estimate incorrectly includes $88,692.83 in prejudgment interest as “[i]t is well settled that in an action for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act prejudgment interest may not be awarded in addition to liquidated damages.” Brock v. Superior Care, Inc., 840 F.2d 1054, 1064 (2d Cir. 1988) (per curiam). This leaves an estimated potential recovery of approximately $570,000. The Court is mindful that the settlement amount of $40,000 provides Plaintiff with only a small portion of his estimated recovery if successful at trial. But “the range of possible recovery is only one factor relevant to settlement approval,” and here the other factors weigh in favor of finding the settlement amount fair and reasonable. Rincon Ecuatoriano, Inc., 2015 WL 7736551, at *2. First, the parties have substantial legal and factual disputes that go to the core of Plaintiff’s claims. For instance, Defendants contend that Plaintiff had a managerial role as “head chef…responsible for the supervision of all kitchen staff,” and thus was “an exempt employee under the FLSA and NYLL.” Fairness Letter at 2. Defendants also assert that “Plaintiff worked substantially less hours than he claimed.” Id. Defendants “indicate[] they are willing to provide witnesses and documents to this effect,” id., whereas Plaintiff did not contemporaneously keep track of his hours, see Compl.
