Rathod v. Wellington Physical Therapy and Acupuncture PLLC
- James Oetken
- 1:23-cv-03276
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Rathod v. Wellington Physical Therapy and Acupuncture, Judge Oetken approved the FLSA settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice.
Vinita Rathod, the defendants, and Rathod’s attorney are affected by the approved settlement. The case is closed, subject only to the court’s retained jurisdiction over disputes arising from the settlement.
What happened
In Rathod v. Wellington Physical Therapy and Acupuncture PLLC, the parties told the court they had settled the Fair Labor Standards Act case and asked the court to approve their agreement. The proposed settlement totaled $37,500.
The agreement allocated $21,432.60 to Vinita Rathod for her wage-related and related claims, based on a possible total recovery of $23,000. It allocated the remaining $15,567.40 to Rathod’s attorney for fees and costs. The court found the settlement fair and reasonable.
Judge J. Paul Oetken approved the settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice. The court retained jurisdiction only to resolve disputes arising from the settlement and directed the clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- Rathod v. Wellington Physical Therapy and Acupuncture PLLC · No. 1:23-cv-03276
- James Oetken
- May 16, 2025
Background
The parties notified the court that they had reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case. They submitted a proposed settlement for court approval.
Settlement Terms
The proposed settlement totaled $37,500. Of that amount, $21,432.60 was allocated to Plaintiff Vinita Rathod for her FLSA and related claims. The allocation was based on a possible total recovery of $23,000. The remaining $15,567.40 was allocated to Rathod’s attorney for fees and costs.
Court’s Ruling
The court reviewed the proposed settlement and found it fair and reasonable under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. The court approved the settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice. The court retained jurisdiction solely to resolve disputes arising from the settlement agreement and the settlement of the action. The clerk was directed to close the case.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.