Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 13, 2019

Ramos v. Koonsup Thai, Inc.

Judge
Jesse Furman
Docket
1:19-cv-08823
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
FlsaFee PetitionCivil Procedure
In one sentence

Ramos v. Koonsup Thai, Inc.: Judge Furman approved a $15,000 FLSA settlement, approved fees and costs, and dismissed the case with prejudice.

Who this affects

The settlement affected Francisco Amadeo Clemente Ramos, the FLSA collective plaintiffs identified in the case, Koonsup Thai, Inc. doing business as Pro Thai, Arunrat Voonbumroung, and plaintiff’s counsel. The order also approved attorney’s fees and costs for plaintiff’s counsel.

What happened

In Ramos v. Koonsup Thai, Inc., the parties reached a settlement in a case brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage law. The court reviewed the parties’ explanation of the proposed settlement.

Judge Furman found the settlement fair and reasonable based on the nature and scope of the plaintiff’s individual claim and the risks and expenses of further litigation. The court also noted that the plaintiff no longer worked for the defendant, reducing concerns about pressure to accept the settlement.

Judge Furman approved the settlement subject to conditions governing later changes and deductions from installment payments. He also approved $4,865.02 in attorney’s fees and $404.95 in costs, dismissed the case with prejudice, and stated that all pending motions were moot.

The detailed version

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

Case
Ramos v. Koonsup Thai, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-08823
Judge
Jesse Furman
Date
Dec. 13, 2019

Background

Francisco Amadeo Clemente Ramos brought this action on behalf of himself and Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective plaintiffs against Koonsup Thai, Inc., doing business as Pro Thai, and Arunrat Voonbumroung. The parties advised the court that they had reached a settlement. The court had previously directed them to explain the proposed settlement and why it should be approved, referring to the factors in Wolinsky v. Scholastic, Inc.

Settlement Approval

After reviewing the parties’ December 12, 2019 letter, the court found the settlement fair and reasonable. It considered the nature and scope of the plaintiff’s individual claim and the risks and expenses involved in continuing the litigation. The court discussed the FLSA’s limits on an employee’s ability to waive claims, but found those concerns less significant because the plaintiff no longer worked for the defendant.

The settlement totaled $15,000. The court approved the plaintiff’s request for $4,865.02 in attorney’s fees and $404.95 in costs. The court stated that the fee award represented 32.4% of the settlement amount and noted that courts in the circuit typically approve fees between 30% and 33%.

Conditions and Disposition

The court required court approval of any modification to the settlement agreement, even if the agreement purported to permit the parties to modify it without court approval. It also modified the agreement to provide that, if plaintiff’s counsel deducted fees and costs from installment payments, counsel could deduct no more than a pro rata share from each installment.

The court approved the settlement subject to those conditions. It dismissed the case with prejudice, ruled that all pending motions were 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.