Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 17, 2022

Ramales v. Peace Food Cafe, Inc.

Judge
Stewart Aaron
Docket
1:21-cv-05223
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
FlsaFee PetitionCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Ramales v. Peace Food Cafe, Judge Aaron approved the parties’ Fair Labor Standards Act settlement, including fees, and dismissed the action with prejudice.

Who this affects

Marcos Ramales and the defendants are bound by the approved settlement; the action was dismissed with prejudice, and the court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement.

What happened

In Ramales v. Peace Food Cafe, Inc., the parties settled all issues after mediation in a case involving claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The court found the settlement fair and reasonable and approved Marcos Ramales’s request for $12,666.67 in attorney’s fees and costs, equal to one-third of the total settlement amount. The court made no finding about the reasonableness of counsel’s hourly rates.

Judge Stewart D. Aaron approved the settlement, dismissed the action with prejudice and without costs except as provided in the settlement agreement, retained jurisdiction to enforce the agreement, 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
Ramales v. Peace Food Cafe, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-05223
Judge
Stewart Aaron
Date
Mar. 17, 2022

Background

Marcos Ramales brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act against Peace Food Cafe, Inc. and other defendants. After mediation, the parties reached a settlement covering all issues.

On February 3, 2022, the court directed the parties to submit the settlement agreement and explain why the settlement—including any attorney’s fees and costs—was fair, reasonable, and adequate. On February 15, 2022, the parties consented to referral of the matter to Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron for disposition under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The parties submitted their proposed settlement and related papers on March 15, 2022.

Settlement and Fees

The court reviewed the proposed settlement and found it fair and reasonable in light of the nature and scope of Ramales’s individual claims and the risks and expenses of further litigation.

Ramales sought approval of $12,666.67 in attorney’s fees and costs, which represented one-third of the total settlement amount. The court noted that courts in the circuit typically approve attorney’s fees equal to one-third of the total recovery and regularly award multipliers of two to six times the lodestar, a calculation used to assess fees based on counsel’s time and hourly rates. The court found the requested fees fair and reasonable but expressly made no finding about the reasonableness of counsel’s hourly rates.

Ruling

Judge Stewart D. Aaron approved the settlement. The action was dismissed with prejudice and without costs except as stated in the settlement agreement. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement and requested that the Clerk of Court 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.