Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 15, 2025

Martinez v. One Jeanswear Group Inc.

Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Docket
1:24-cv-07512
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
6
FlsaEmploymentFee Petition
In one sentence

Martinez v. One Jeanswear Group Inc.: Judge Ramos approved the parties’ wage-and-hour settlement and closed the case.

Who this affects

Eva Martinez and One Jeanswear Group Inc. and One Jeanswear Group LLC are affected by the approved settlement; the case was closed after the court approved the agreement.

What happened

In Martinez v. One Jeanswear Group Inc., Eva Martinez alleged that the defendants violated federal and New York wage laws by failing to pay minimum wages, overtime, spread-of-hours compensation, and required wage notices.

The parties asked the court to approve a $37,500 settlement. After attorneys’ fees and costs, Martinez would receive $24,465, or about 58% of her estimated maximum recovery. The defendants denied wrongdoing and argued that an administrative exemption applied and that any damages would be less than $3,000.

Judge Edgardo Ramos found the settlement, attorneys’ fees and costs, release, and other provisions fair and reasonable. He granted the settlement-approval motion and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate it and close the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Martinez v. One Jeanswear Group Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-07512
Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Date
Apr. 15, 2025

Background

Eva Martinez sued One Jeanswear Group Inc. and One Jeanswear Group LLC under the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Labor Law, and New York City wage-and-hour rules. She alleged that the defendants failed to pay the lawful minimum wage and overtime, failed to pay spread-of-hours compensation, and failed to provide required wage-and-hour notices. The parties jointly moved for approval of their settlement.

Settlement terms and fairness review

The agreement provided for a total payment of $37,500. Martinez’s counsel would receive $12,500 in attorneys’ fees and $535 in costs, leaving Martinez with $24,465. Martinez estimated that her maximum possible recovery was approximately $42,706.92, so her net settlement represented about 58% of that estimate.

The defendants denied wrongdoing. They argued that Martinez was covered by an administrative exemption that would defeat her overtime claims and that, even if she were not exempt, her damages would be less than $3,000. The court also considered the risks, costs, and delays of continuing the litigation and found that the agreement resulted from negotiations conducted by experienced employment attorneys.

Attorneys’ fees and other provisions

The court found the requested fees and costs reasonable. It approved a $450 hourly rate for attorney Marcus Monteiro and a $150 hourly rate for paralegal Nathalia Castillo. The court calculated a lodestar of $24,750—the reasonable hourly rates multiplied by the reasonable hours—and found that the requested $12,500 fee produced a multiplier of approximately 0.48.

The court also found that the release was limited to claims related to Martinez’s wage-and-hour allegations, including her claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The agreement’s non-disparagement provision contained an exception allowing truthful statements about Martinez’s experience litigating the case, and the agreement contained no confidentiality provision.

Ruling

Judge Edgardo Ramos concluded that the proposed settlement agreement was fair and reasonable and granted the parties’ motion for settlement approval. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion and close the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 6-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.