Raamanuj v. Zaika Food Company LLC
- Katharine Parker
- 1:20-cv-04317
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Raamanuj v. Zaika Food Company LLC, Judge Parker approved the settlement and discontinued the action with prejudice and without costs.
Sharma Raamanuj, Zaika Food Company LLC, and the other defendants were affected by the approved settlement and the discontinuance of the action with prejudice and without costs. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement if necessary.
What happened
Sharma Raamanuj sued Zaika Food Company LLC and other defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The parties reached an agreement in principle to resolve the case and asked the court to approve their proposed settlement.
The court reviewed the proposed agreement and Raamanuj’s explanation of why it was fair, reasonable, and adequate. The submissions described an arms-length mediation with an experienced mediator, but the opinion does not state the settlement amount or other specific payment terms.
Judge Parker approved the settlement, including compensation for Raamanuj’s claims and legal fees. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the agreement if necessary, discontinued the action with prejudice and without costs, and directed the clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- Raamanuj v. Zaika Food Company LLC · No. 1:20-cv-04317
- Katharine Parker
- Feb. 23, 2022
Background
Sharma Raamanuj brought an action against Zaika Food Company LLC and other defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The parties consented to the court’s authority under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). They later reached an agreement in principle and submitted a proposed settlement for judicial approval.
Settlement review
Because Fair Labor Standards Act settlements require judicial fairness review, the court evaluated whether the proposed agreement was a reasonable compromise of the claims. Raamanuj submitted a letter explaining why the agreement was fair, reasonable, and adequate. The court considered that submission, the settlement’s terms, and the parties’ representation that they had participated in an arms-length mediation with an experienced mediator.
Ruling and disposition
The court found that the proposed settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate to address Raamanuj’s claims and compensate counsel for legal fees, and it approved the agreement. At the parties’ request, the court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement if necessary. The court then discontinued the action with prejudice and without costs, and directed the clerk to close the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.