Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 21, 2024

Carabali v. J. Wasser & Co.

Judge
Subramanian
Docket
1:23-cv-05740
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
FlsaCivil ProcedureFee Petition
In one sentence

In Carabali v. J. Wasser & Co., Judge Subramanian approved the wage-settlement agreement, attorneys’ fees, and dismissal with prejudice.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs, J. Wasser & Co. Inc. doing business as J. Wasser & Co., Alex Kohn, and plaintiffs’ counsel were affected. The plaintiffs received the settlement amounts stated in the agreement, counsel received the approved fees and costs, and the case was dismissed with prejudice.

What happened

In Carabali v. J. Wasser & Co., the plaintiffs brought claims under federal and New York wage laws and agreed with the defendants to settle. The agreement provided for a total payment of $60,000, including $20,872 for their lawyers’ fees and costs.

The court found the settlement fair and reasonable. It considered the plaintiffs’ possible recovery, the early stage of the case, litigation risks, the parties’ negotiations through counsel and mediation, and the absence of signs of fraud or collusion. The court also approved the requested fees and costs.

Judge Arun Subramanian approved the settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning the case was closed and could not be refiled. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Carabali v. J. Wasser & Co. · No. 1:23-cv-05740
Judge
Subramanian
Date
June 21, 2024

Background

The plaintiffs brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York State Labor Law. They told the court that they had reached a settlement with J. Wasser & Co. Inc., doing business as J. Wasser & Co., and Alex Kohn. The executed agreement required a total payment of $60,000. Of that amount, $20,872 would go to plaintiffs’ counsel for attorneys’ fees and costs. The agreement included a release of wage claims against the defendants but did not include a confidentiality provision, general release, or non-disparagement clause.

Because the claims arose under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the court reviewed the settlement for fairness under the required court-approval standard. The court reviewed the settlement motion, agreement, damages calculations, billing records, and invoices, and requested supplemental briefing before ruling.

Settlement Approval

The court found the settlement fair and reasonable. The plaintiffs estimated that Mr. Carabali’s total recoverable amount was $135,927 and Mr. Almonte’s was $99,908. After attorneys’ fees and costs, Mr. Carabali would receive $22,302.96 and Mr. Almonte would receive $16,824.04. The court calculated those amounts as approximately 16% and 17%, respectively, of the plaintiffs’ estimated maximum recoveries and found the amounts acceptable.

The court also considered that the case was still at an early stage and that settlement would avoid further expenses and litigation risks. Both sides were represented by counsel, exchanged documents, and participated in two mediation conferences. The court found that the agreement reflected a reasonable compromise because the plaintiffs faced potential difficulties proving standing for their wage-statement and wage-notice claims. The defendants also said they had records challenging the plaintiffs’ claimed weekly hours and evidence that they were not the plaintiffs’ true employer. The court found no indication of fraud or collusion and concluded that the limited, unilateral release was acceptable.

Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

The plaintiffs requested $20,872 in attorneys’ fees and costs, including $872 for counsel’s out-of-pocket costs. The court stated that this represented approximately 33% of the net settlement amount and found the request reasonable. The court noted that courts in the circuit had approved fees of up to 35% of the recovery. It also declined to compare the contingency fee with counsel’s hours worked through a separate calculation because the fee was agreed to in advance and counsel bore the risk that the recovery might not adequately compensate the time spent litigating the case.

Disposition

Judge Arun Subramanian approved the settlement, approved the attorneys’ fees and costs, and dismissed the case with prejudice. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.

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.