Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 17, 2024

Abreu v. ESB Kitchen and Bar Corp

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:23-cv-07226
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
FlsaFee PetitionCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Abreu v. ESB Kitchen and Bar Corp., Judge Caproni approved the proposed wage-claim settlement and attorneys’ fee award, then dismissed the matter with prejudice.

Who this affects

Federico Abreu, ESB Kitchen and Bar Corp. doing business as Emergency Snack Bar, Emergency Snack Bar Corp., Richard Estevez, and Abreu’s counsel.

What happened

Abreu v. ESB Kitchen and Bar Corp. involved the parties’ proposed settlement of Federico Abreu’s wage claims. Abreu estimated that he was owed about $22,405 in unpaid wages and that his claims could be worth about $72,778.52 if fully recovered.

The proposed settlement provided Abreu with a total recovery of $15,000. His counsel planned to receive $5,466.57, and the court found the settlement amount and fee award fair and reasonable.

Judge Valerie Caproni approved the settlement and attorneys’ fee award, retained jurisdiction to enforce the agreement, and dismissed the matter with prejudice. She also directed the Clerk of Court to terminate all motions and deadlines and close the case.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Abreu v. ESB Kitchen and Bar Corp · No. 1:23-cv-07226
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
June 17, 2024

Background

On June 12, 2024, the parties submitted a proposed settlement agreement and supporting materials for court approval under the federal wage statute known as the Fair Labor Standards Act. Federico Abreu estimated that he was owed approximately $22,405 in unpaid wages and that his claims, assuming full recovery, were worth approximately $72,778.52.

The proposed agreement provided for a total recovery of $15,000. From that amount, Abreu’s counsel intended to receive $5,466.57 in attorneys’ fees, described as one-third of the settlement amount after costs.

Court’s Analysis

The court found that a settlement of approximately two-thirds of the estimated actual damages was reasonable because it would allow the parties to avoid the anticipated burdens and expenses of proving their claims and defenses. The court also found the attorneys’ fee percentage reasonable.

As a cross-check, the court considered the lodestar method, which estimates fees by multiplying reasonable hours by a reasonable hourly rate. The court found counsel’s hourly rate of $375 reasonable and found the hours spent bringing and settling the case generally reasonable. The $5,466.57 fee represented approximately 1.4 times the lodestar, and the court found that multiplier reasonable. The court also found that the settlement’s release was appropriately limited and did not waive unrelated claims.

Ruling

Judge Valerie Caproni ordered that the proposed settlement agreement and attorneys’ fee award be approved as fair and reasonable. The court retained jurisdiction over enforcement of the settlement agreement. It further ordered that the matter be dismissed with prejudice, directed the Clerk of Court to terminate all motions and deadlines, and ordered the case closed.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.