Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 25, 2025

Harris v. F. Schumacher & Co., LLC

Judge
Stewart Aaron
Docket
1:23-cv-05676
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
FlsaFee PetitionCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Harris v. F. Schumacher, Judge Aaron approved the wage-and-hour settlement, $16,507 in fees, and $477 in costs, then dismissed the case with prejudice.

Who this affects

Mary Harris and F. Schumacher & Co., LLC; the approved settlement resolves the action and includes attorney’s fees and litigation costs.

What happened

In Harris v. F. Schumacher & Co., LLC, Mary Harris and the company reached a settlement in a case involving claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the federal wage-and-hour law.

The court found the settlement fair and reasonable after considering the claims, the risks and costs of further litigation, and potential concerns about the agreement. It also found reasonable the requested $16,507 in attorney’s fees and $477 in costs.

Judge Stewart D. Aaron approved the settlement and dismissed the action with prejudice, without costs except as provided in the settlement agreement. The Clerk of Court was asked to close the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Harris v. F. Schumacher & Co., LLC · No. 1:23-cv-05676
Judge
Stewart Aaron
Date
Feb. 25, 2025

Background

The case included one or more claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The parties reached a settlement on February 4, 2025, and consented to have all proceedings conducted before Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron. The court required the parties to submit the settlement agreement and explain why it was fair, reasonable, and adequate.

Settlement Review

After reviewing the proposed agreement and the parties’ submission, the court found the settlement fair and reasonable based on the nature and scope of Mary Harris’s claims and the risks and expenses of continued litigation. The court also found no other concerns requiring rejection of the agreement, including concerns about overbroad releases or restrictive confidentiality provisions.

Attorney’s Fees and Costs

The settlement requested $16,507 in attorney’s fees and $477 in costs. The fees represented one-third of the settlement amount after costs and were based on a contingency-fee agreement. The court found the fee agreement reasonable, concluded that the requested fees were consistent with that agreement, and approved the fees.

The requested costs consisted of $402 in filing fees and $75 in service-of-process costs. The court found those costs reasonable.

Disposition

The court approved the settlement. It dismissed the action with prejudice and without costs except as stated in the settlement agreement. The Clerk of Court was respectfully requested 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.