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

Santamaria v. Vee Technologies, Inc.

Judge
Subramanian
Docket
1:22-cv-04472
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
FlsaCivil ProcedureFee Petition
In one sentence

In Santamaria v. Vee Technologies, Judge Subramanian approved the FLSA settlement and dismissed the FLSA claim with prejudice.

Who this affects

Toni Santamaria, Vee Technologies, Inc., Patrick O’Malley, and Santamaria’s counsel were affected by the approved settlement, fee and cost allocation, and dismissal of the Fair Labor Standards Act claim.

What happened

In Santamaria v. Vee Technologies, Inc., the parties asked the court to approve their settlement of Toni Santamaria’s Fair Labor Standards Act claims. The agreement provided for a total payment of $195,000, including $72,284.51 for Santamaria’s attorneys’ fees and costs.

The court found the settlement fair and reasonable after reviewing the agreement, damages calculations, billing records, and invoices. Santamaria would receive $122,715.49 after fees and costs, about 47% of her estimated maximum recovery. The court also found the requested attorneys’ fees and costs reasonable.

Judge Arun Subramanian approved the settlement and dismissed the Fair Labor Standards Act claim with prejudice. The court said it would dismiss the entire case after the parties filed the attached dismissal agreement.

The detailed version

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

Case
Santamaria v. Vee Technologies, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-04472
Judge
Subramanian
Date
June 17, 2024

Background

Toni Santamaria brought claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, the New York State Labor Law, and the Fair Labor Standards Act. The parties told the court that they had agreed to settle the Fair Labor Standards Act claims and submitted the signed settlement agreement and supporting memorandum.

The agreement required Vee Technologies, Inc. and Patrick O’Malley to pay $195,000. Santamaria agreed to release claims against the defendants related to this case. The agreement allocated $72,284.51 to Santamaria’s counsel for fees and costs and did not contain a general confidentiality provision or a general release.

Settlement approval

The court reviewed the settlement agreement, damages calculations, billing records, and invoices. Applying the factors used to evaluate Fair Labor Standards Act settlements, the court considered the possible recovery, the costs and risks of continuing toward trial, the parties’ representation by counsel, and the absence of fraud or collusion.

Santamaria estimated that her total recoverable amount was $259,457.67. After attorneys’ fees and costs, she would receive $122,715.49, approximately 47% of that estimated maximum recovery. The court found this amount fair and reasonable. The court also found that settlement at a stage approaching trial would avoid additional trial expenses and litigation risks.

The agreement included a mutual non-disparagement clause. The court approved that provision because it included an exception allowing truthful statements about the parties’ experience litigating the case.

Attorneys’ fees and costs

Santamaria sought approval of $61,265.71 in attorneys’ fees and $11,018.87 in out-of-pocket costs. The court found the fees reasonable because they represented approximately 33% of the net settlement amount, within percentages approved in other cases, and were supported by contemporaneous billing records.

Counsel’s records showed more than $97,000 in incurred legal fees and 215.59 attorney and paralegal hours. The court did not find excessive work or staffing. It also found that counsel’s hourly rates, ranging from $375 to $550, were consistent with prevailing rates in the district and that the requested amount was below the amount actually billed.

Disposition

The court approved the settlement and dismissed the Fair Labor Standards Act claim with prejudice. It stated that it would dismiss the case in full once the parties filed the stipulation of dismissal attached to the settlement as Exhibit A.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-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.