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

Calentine v. Nexus Point Strategies, LLC

Judge
Jesse Furman
Docket
1:24-cv-10051
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
FlsaFee PetitionCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Calentine v. Nexus Point Strategies, LLC, Judge Furman approved the FLSA settlement, approved fees and costs, and dismissed the case with prejudice.

Who this affects

Robert Calentine, Nexus Point Strategies, LLC, Richard Horner, and James J. Eagan; the approved settlement and attorney’s-fee award resolved the case.

What happened

Robert Calentine sued Nexus Point Strategies, LLC, Richard Horner, and James J. Eagan under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The parties reached a settlement and asked the court to approve it.

The court found the settlement fair and reasonable after considering the nature of Calentine’s individual claim and the risks and costs of further litigation. It also approved $36,103.33 in attorney’s fees and costs, although it made no finding about the reasonableness of counsel’s hourly rates or the number of hours worked.

Judge Jesse M. Furman required court approval for any changes to the settlement, dismissed the case with prejudice, declared all pending motions moot, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Calentine v. Nexus Point Strategies, LLC · No. 1:24-cv-10051
Judge
Jesse Furman
Date
Apr. 15, 2025

Background

Robert Calentine brought this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law governing minimum wages, overtime, and related employment protections. The defendants were Nexus Point Strategies, LLC, Richard Horner, and James J. Eagan. The parties informed the court that they had reached a settlement.

The court previously directed the parties to submit a joint letter explaining the proposed settlement and why it should be approved. The parties submitted that letter on April 11, 2025.

Settlement Approval

After reviewing the parties’ submission, the court found that the settlement was fair and reasonable. The court considered the nature and scope of Calentine’s individual claim and the risks and expenses of continuing the litigation.

The court made settlement approval conditional on any modification to the settlement agreement receiving court approval. This condition applies even if the agreement contains language allowing the parties to modify it without court approval.

Attorney’s Fees and Costs

Calentine also sought approval of $36,103.33 in attorney’s fees and costs. The court noted that the requested amount was high compared with the size of Calentine’s claim and recovery. It nevertheless found no basis to reduce the award because there were no other plaintiffs who had joined the case, the case was not a collective action, and the fee award was presumably based on an agreement between Calentine and his attorney.

The court also noted that courts in the federal district generally approve attorney’s fees ranging from 30% to 33%. It approved the requested fees and costs but expressly made no finding about whether counsel’s hourly rates were reasonable or whether the number of hours spent on the case was reasonable.

Disposition

The court approved the settlement subject to the condition that it approve any modification. It dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning the case may not be refiled, declared all pending motions moot, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.