Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 14, 2025

Kaur v. Natasha Accessories Ltd.

Judge
James Oetken
Docket
1:23-cv-06948
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
FlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Kaur v. Natasha Accessories Ltd., Judge Oetken approved a $7,500 FLSA settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice.

Who this affects

Jaswinder Kaur and the defendants are affected by the approved settlement and dismissal. The court retained limited jurisdiction over disputes arising from the settlement.

What happened

In Kaur v. Natasha Accessories Ltd., the parties told the court they had reached a settlement in Jaswinder Kaur’s Fair Labor Standards Act case. The proposed agreement provided $7,500 for Kaur’s claims, with one-third of that amount allocated to attorney’s fees.

The court reviewed the agreement and found it fair and reasonable. It approved the proposed settlement.

Judge J. Paul Oetken dismissed the case with prejudice and directed the clerk to close it. The court retained jurisdiction only to resolve disputes arising from the settlement agreement or the settlement of the action.

The detailed version

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

Case
Kaur v. Natasha Accessories Ltd. · No. 1:23-cv-06948
Judge
James Oetken
Date
Feb. 14, 2025

Background

Jaswinder Kaur brought this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case on behalf of herself and others similarly situated against Natasha Accessories Ltd. and other defendants. The parties notified the court that they had reached a settlement and submitted the proposed agreement for court approval.

Proposed settlement

The agreement provided for a total of $7,500 to be allocated to Kaur in connection with her FLSA claims. One-third of the settlement amount was to be collected as attorney’s fees.

Ruling

The court reviewed the proposed settlement and found it fair and reasonable under the standard described in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. The court approved the settlement, dismissed the case with prejudice, and directed the clerk to close the case. The court retained jurisdiction solely to resolve disputes arising from the settlement agreement and the settlement of the action.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.