Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 21, 2025

Cruz v. Steven Madden Ltd.

Judge
Stewart Aaron
Docket
1:24-cv-08273
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
FlsaEmploymentFee PetitionCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Cruz v. Steven Madden Ltd., Judge Aaron approved the settlement, fees, and costs, then dismissed the case with prejudice.

Who this affects

Arnel Cruz and Steven Madden Ltd.; the settlement resolved the action, and the case was dismissed with prejudice.

What happened

In Cruz v. Steven Madden Ltd., the parties told the court they had reached a settlement during mediation of claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The court required them to submit the agreement and explain why it was fair and reasonable.

The court approved the settlement after finding it fair and reasonable in light of the claims, litigation risks, and further litigation expenses. It also approved $11,506 in attorney fees and $482 in costs.

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

The detailed version

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

Case
Cruz v. Steven Madden Ltd. · No. 1:24-cv-08273
Judge
Stewart Aaron
Date
Mar. 21, 2025

Background

The case included one or more claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The parties informed the court that they reached a settlement during mediation on January 22, 2025, and later agreed that all proceedings could be held before Judge Stewart D. Aaron.

On March 6, 2025, the court directed the parties to submit the settlement agreement and a letter explaining why the settlement—including attorney fees and costs—was fair, reasonable, and adequate. This review was required under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. On March 20, 2025, the parties submitted a motion for settlement approval, the proposed agreement, and related materials.

Court’s Analysis

The court found the proposed settlement fair and reasonable based on the nature and scope of the plaintiff’s claims, as well as the risks and expenses of additional litigation. The court also found that the settlement did not raise other concerns identified in Cheeks, including overbroad releases or restrictive confidentiality provisions.

The settlement requested approval of $11,506 in attorney fees and $482 in costs. The requested fee represented one-third of the settlement amount after costs and was authorized by a retainer agreement. The court found the contingency-fee agreement reasonable and the requested fees consistent with that agreement. The court also found the requested costs reasonable, including $405 in filing fees and $77 for service of process.

The court noted a discrepancy in the motion concerning the lodestar calculation, which was listed as $8,115 based on 16.23 hours at $500 per hour, but stated that this discrepancy did not change the court’s conclusion that the one-third contingency fee was fair and reasonable.

Disposition

The court approved the settlement, attorney fees, and costs. It dismissed the action with prejudice and without costs except as stated in the settlement agreement. The Clerk of Court was asked 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.