Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 7, 2022

Benitez v. 58 west llc

Judge
Jesse Furman
Docket
1:21-cv-10513
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
FlsaFee PetitionCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Benitez v. 58 West LLC, Judge Furman approved the FLSA settlement, approved the requested fees and costs, and dismissed the case with prejudice.

Who this affects

Jose Benitez, 58 West LLC, and the attorneys involved in the approved settlement were directly affected. The case was closed after the court approved the settlement and dismissed it with prejudice.

What happened

Jose Benitez and 58 West LLC agreed to settle Benitez’s wage-related claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The court reviewed the parties’ explanation and found the settlement fair and reasonable in light of the claim, litigation risks, and expected expenses.

The court approved the settlement on the condition that any change to the agreement receive court approval. It also found the requested $4,900.02 in attorney’s fees and costs appropriate, although it made no findings about the reasonableness of counsel’s hourly rates.

Judge Jesse M. Furman dismissed the case with prejudice, ruled that all pending motions were 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
Benitez v. 58 west llc · No. 1:21-cv-10513
Judge
Jesse Furman
Date
Mar. 7, 2022

Background

Jose Benitez brought this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law governing wages and working hours. The parties told the court that they had reached a settlement and attempted to voluntarily dismiss the case with prejudice, meaning the case could not be brought again in that form.

The court had previously required a joint explanation of the proposed settlement, referring to factors used to evaluate whether an FLSA settlement is fair and reasonable. After reviewing the parties’ revised letter dated March 7, 2022, the court found the settlement fair and reasonable based on the nature and scope of Benitez’s individual claim and the risks and expenses of further litigation. The court also noted that Benitez no longer worked for the defendant, which reduced concerns about pressure to give up wage claims.

Settlement and Fees

The court approved the settlement subject to one condition: any modification of the settlement agreement must be approved by the court, even if the agreement contains language allowing the parties to modify it without court approval.

Benitez also sought approval of $4,900.02 in attorney’s fees and costs. The court observed that the proposed fee was high compared with the size of Benitez’s claim and recovery, but found no basis to reduce it because there were no additional plaintiffs who had joined the case, the case was not a collective action, and the fee arrangement was between Benitez and his attorney. The court concluded that attorney’s fees equal to one-third of the recovery were appropriate. It expressly made no findings about whether counsel’s hourly rates were reasonable.

Disposition

The court approved the settlement subject to the court-approval condition for modifications. 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.