OPINION & ORDER Plaintiff Marisol Medina (“Plaintiff”) brings this putative class action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§201-219 (“FLSA”), the New York State Labor Law (“NYLL”), the New York Code of Rules and Regulations (“NYCRR”), and the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act, against Defendants NYC Harlem Foods Inc, Bronx 163 Foods Inc., Bronx Market Foods Inc., NYC 143 Foods Inc., NYC 96 Foods Inc., NYC 89 Foods Inc., NYC Park Foods Inc., NYC 125 Foods Inc., NYC 159 Foods Inc., NYC 155 Foods Inc., Sunnyside Bk Qsr Inc., NYC 116 Bk Qsr Inc., NYC 116 Foods Inc., NYC 121 Foods Inc., NYC 114 Foods Inc., Bronx Prospect Foods Inc., NYC 145 Foods Inc., NYC Lenox Foods Inc., NYC 178 Foods Inc., Bronx 138 Foods Inc., Rv Eastchester Foods Inc., NYC 148 Foods Inc., NYC Lexington Foods Inc., NYC 161 Foods Inc., Bronx 170 Foods Inc., Andhra Foods Inc., Somya Foods, Inc., Rvn Foods Inc., and Srinivasa Rao Tummalapenta (collectively, “Defendants”). Before me is Plaintiff’s motion seeking an order (1) granting preliminary approval of the proposed settlement; (2) conditionally certifying the settlement class and appointing Plaintiff as the class representative of the settlement class; (3) appointing Plaintiff’s counsel as class counsel; and (4) approving Plaintiff’s notice of settlement. Because I find that the proposed settlement is unreasonable, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. I. Factual Background and Procedural History 1. The Complaint’s Allegations Plaintiff is a New York resident and “manual worker” for Defendants, which “jointly own and operate fast food establishments throughout New York State.” (See Doc. 1 (“Compl.”)
2, 32, 62, 76.) The proposed class notice indicates that these “fast food establishments” are, specifically, Dunkin Donuts franchises, (see Doc. 86-3), although that information is absent from the Complaint or briefing. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have denied her overtime pay in violation of the FLSA and NYLL, (see Compl.
