Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 20, 2026

Meyer v. Spanish Dance Arts Company

Judge
Garnett
Docket
1:25-cv-02782
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2

Counsel2 of record
PLAINTIFF
William Francis Knight , IV Valiant Law
Joseph Jeziorkowski Valiant Law

Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.

EmploymentFlsaFee PetitionCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Meyer v. Spanish Dance Arts, Judge Garnett approved a $120,000 settlement, approved one-third fees and costs, and dismissed the case with prejudice.

Who this affects

Olivia Meyer and the defendants affected by the approved settlement, including Spanish Dance Arts Company, Inc., and others named in the case.

What happened

In Olivia Meyer v. Spanish Dance Arts Company, Inc., et al., the parties settled claims under the Family and Medical Leave Act, Title VII, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and several New York laws. Because the settlement resolved Fair Labor Standards Act claims, the court reviewed the agreement and the parties’ fairness submission.

The court found the settlement fair and reasonable, considering the claims, the risks and costs of further litigation, the agreement’s non-disparagement provision, its releases, and the settlement payment. The court also found that one-third of the recovery was appropriate for attorneys’ fees and costs.

Judge Margaret M. Garnett approved the settlement subject to court approval of any modification, dismissed the case with prejudice, declared all pending motions moot, canceled all conferences, and directed the Clerk to close the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Meyer v. Spanish Dance Arts Company · No. 1:25-cv-02782
Judge
Garnett
Date
July 20, 2026

Background

Olivia Meyer brought this action against Spanish Dance Arts Company, Inc., and others under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The parties informed the court that they had reached a settlement in principle. Because the settlement included Fair Labor Standards Act claims, the court required the parties to submit the settlement agreement and a memorandum addressing its fairness.

Settlement Review

After reviewing the agreement and the parties’ joint letter, the court found the settlement fair and reasonable in light of the nature and scope of the claims, and the risks and expenses of continued litigation. The court noted that the non-disparagement provision contained the required exception allowing Meyer to discuss the litigation. It also found that the mutual releases were appropriate even though they covered some future claims unrelated to wage-and-hour matters, given the range of claims in the lawsuit and the parties’ mutual agreement. The court further noted that the settlement payment exceeded Meyer’s likely recovery on the Fair Labor Standards Act claim, that Meyer no longer worked for the defendants, and that she had been represented by competent counsel throughout the litigation.

Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

Meyer sought approval of attorneys’ fees and costs equal to roughly 33.3% of the $120,000 settlement amount. The court stated that courts in the circuit typically approve fees ranging from 30% to 33.33% and concluded that fees equal to one-third of the recovery were appropriate under the circumstances.

Ruling

The court approved the settlement subject to a condition that any modification of the agreement must receive court approval, regardless of any provision allowing the parties to modify it without court approval. The court dismissed the case with prejudice. It also ruled that all pending motions were moot, canceled all conferences, 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.