Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 16, 2022

Thomas v. Arts in Common LLC

Judge
Sarah Cave
Docket
1:21-cv-06948
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
FlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Thomas v. Arts in Common LLC, Judge Cave approved a revised FLSA settlement, dismissed the action with prejudice, and retained enforcement jurisdiction.

Who this affects

Daria Thomas, Arts in Common LLC, Rafael Baccus, and Thomas’s counsel; the action was resolved under the approved settlement.

What happened

In Thomas v. Arts in Common LLC, the parties asked Judge Sarah L. Cave to approve a settlement in Daria Thomas’s wage-and-hour case under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law governing wages and working hours. Thomas brought the case for herself and others in a proposed group action.

The court had previously denied the parties’ first settlement request without prejudice because the agreement contained defects. The revised agreement provided for a $12,000 lump-sum payment: $7,045.15 to Thomas and $4,954.85 to her lawyer, including $3,522.05 in fees and $1,432.80 in costs.

Judge Cave found the revised agreement, including the fees and costs, fair and reasonable and approved it. She dismissed the action with prejudice and without costs except as provided in the agreement, retained jurisdiction to enforce the agreement, and ruled that any pending motions were moot.

The detailed version

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

Case
Thomas v. Arts in Common LLC · No. 1:21-cv-06948
Judge
Sarah Cave
Date
May 16, 2022

Background

Daria Thomas brought this wage-and-hour action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) on behalf of herself and others in a proposed FLSA collective action against Arts in Common LLC and Rafael Baccus. The parties consented to Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave’s jurisdiction to review their proposed settlement.

The parties first submitted a settlement for approval under the Second Circuit’s requirements for reviewing FLSA settlements. On May 2, 2022, the court denied that request without prejudice because it identified defects in the settlement agreement and directed the parties to submit a revised agreement. The parties filed the revised agreement on May 13, 2022.

Revised settlement

The revised agreement provided for one lump-sum payment of $12,000. The agreement allocated $7,045.15 to Thomas and $4,954.85 to her counsel, consisting of $3,522.05 in legal fees and $1,432.80 in costs. The court stated that, after deducting $1,432.05 from the settlement amount, the remaining $10,567.20 was appropriately allocated two-thirds to Thomas and one-third to her counsel as legal fees.

Court’s ruling

Judge Cave found that all terms of the revised settlement, including the allocation of attorneys’ fees and costs, appeared fair and reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. The court therefore approved the Revised Settlement Agreement.

The court dismissed the action with prejudice and without costs except as provided in the Revised Settlement Agreement. It retained jurisdiction to enforce the agreement, ruled that any pending motions were moot, directed the Clerk of Court to mark the settlement filing as “granted,” and directed that the case be closed.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-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.