Kaloshi v. West Village Oasis, Inc.
- Subramanian
- 1:22-cv-04593
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Kaloshi v. West Village Oasis, Inc., Judge Subramanian approved the parties’ Fair Labor Standards Act settlement and related attorneys’ fees.
Adriana Kaloshi and Mishele Koroveshi, who will each receive $8,558.09 from the approved settlement, and their counsel, who will receive $8,883.81 in fees and costs. The order also affects West Village Oasis, Inc., doing business as Casa La Femme South, and the other defendants because it approves their settlement of the FLSA claim and directs dismissal paperwork for the remaining claims.
What happened
Adriana Kaloshi and Mishele Koroveshi sued West Village Oasis, Inc., doing business as Casa La Femme South, and others under federal and New York wage and discrimination laws. The parties agreed to settle the federal wage claim for $26,000, with $8,883.81 going to their lawyers for fees and costs.
The court reviewed the settlement, damages calculations, billing records, and invoices. It found the settlement fair and reasonable despite the relatively low amount each plaintiff would receive, because settlement avoided further trial expenses and litigation risks. Each plaintiff would receive $8,558.09 after fees and costs.
Judge Subramanian approved the Fair Labor Standards Act settlement and the requested attorneys’ fees and costs. He directed the parties to file a dismissal of the remaining claims under Rule 41 by July 8, 2024, and directed the Clerk to terminate Docket 113.
The detailed version
- Kaloshi v. West Village Oasis, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-04593
- Subramanian
- June 28, 2024
Background
Adriana Kaloshi and Mishele Koroveshi brought claims under 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 (FLSA). The parties agreed to settle the FLSA claim and submitted their settlement agreement and supporting memorandum for court approval.
The agreement provided for a total payment of $26,000. The plaintiffs would each receive $8,558.09 after payment of attorneys’ fees and costs. Plaintiffs’ counsel would receive $8,883.81, including $836.28 in out-of-pocket costs. The opinion describes the agreement as including a release of wage-and-hour claims related to the case, while also stating that it did not contain a general confidentiality provision or a release.
Court’s analysis
Under Second Circuit precedent, parties generally may not privately settle FLSA claims through a stipulated dismissal without approval from the district court or the Department of Labor. The court evaluated the agreement under the fairness factors used for FLSA settlements, including the plaintiffs’ possible recovery, the costs and burdens of continued litigation, the risks at trial, the parties’ represented and adversarial negotiations, and the possibility of fraud or collusion.
The court found the settlement fair and reasonable. Although the amount each plaintiff would receive was relatively low, the settlement avoided additional trial expenses and accounted for serious litigation risks. Both sides were represented by counsel, and the court found no indication of fraud or collusion.
The court also reviewed the requested attorneys’ fees and costs. It noted that the fee represented approximately 32% of the settlement amount used for the percentage calculation and that courts in the district had approved fees of up to 36% in comparable cases. As a cross-check, the court reviewed counsel’s billing records, which showed more than $24,000 in fees incurred on the FLSA portion of the case and 146.1 attorney and paralegal hours on the matter more broadly. The court found the work and staffing reasonable, the hourly rates of $350 to $400 consistent with prevailing rates in the district, and the requested amount lower than counsel’s actual billed fees.
Ruling
Judge Arun Subramanian approved the FLSA settlement and the requested attorneys’ fees and costs. The court directed the parties to file a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 concerning the remaining claims no later than July 8, 2024. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate Docket 113.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.