Animucka v. Singer
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:20-cv-07867
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Animucka v. Singer, Judge Ramos approved a $30,000 settlement of wage claims, awarded counsel $10,845, and closed the case.
Stanislawa Animucka will receive $19,155 under the approved settlement; her counsel will receive $10,845 in fees and costs; the defendants’ settlement obligations were approved; and the case was closed.
What happened
In Animucka v. Singer, Stanislawa Animucka claimed that Rubin Singer and Alik Singer failed to pay required regular and overtime wages, paid her late, and failed to provide required wage notices and wage statements under federal and New York law.
The parties asked the court to approve their settlement. The agreement provided $30,000 total: $19,155 for Animucka and $10,845 for her lawyers’ fees and costs. The court found the amount, the lawyers’ fees, the release of claims, and the agreement’s other provisions fair and reasonable.
Judge Edgardo Ramos granted settlement approval, directed the clerk to terminate the motion, and closed the case. The opinion approved the compromise but did not decide whether the defendants had violated wage laws.
The detailed version
- Animucka v. Singer · No. 1:20-cv-07867
- Edgardo Ramos
- Oct. 21, 2022
Background
Stanislawa Animucka brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. She alleged that the defendants failed to pay all regular and overtime wages owed to her, routinely paid her wages at least one week late, and failed to provide required wage notices and wage statements.
The parties submitted a proposed settlement for court approval. The opinion explains that private settlements of Fair Labor Standards Act claims require approval by either the district court or the Department of Labor when the settlement ends those claims with prejudice. The court therefore evaluated whether the agreement was fair and reasonable.
Settlement Amount
The agreement provided a total recovery of $30,000. After $10,845 for attorneys’ fees and costs, Animucka would receive $19,155. Her counsel estimated that her maximum possible recovery at trial would be approximately $171,824, including liquidated damages. The settlement therefore represented approximately 17.5% of that estimate rather than full payment of every claim.
The court nevertheless found the amount fair and reasonable. The settlement covered all of Animucka’s alleged unpaid regular and overtime wages, nearly all liquidated damages for those wages, and all damages claimed for wage-notice and paystub violations. The court also considered the risks and delays of litigation, Animucka’s stated concerns about collecting a judgment, the existence of genuine disputed issues, and the parties’ arm’s-length negotiations through experienced labor and employment attorneys.
Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
The court approved the requested $10,845 in attorneys’ fees and costs, including $1,113 in costs. The fee request was approximately one-third of the settlement. As a cross-check, the court calculated a lodestar—the reasonable hourly rate multiplied by the reasonable hours worked—of $18,557.50. The court accepted the resulting multiplier of approximately 0.52 after costs and found the fee request reasonable under the circumstances.
The court found reasonable the hourly rates of $450 for Robert Wisniewski and $125 for Barbara Luberadzka. The billing records showed 26.1 hours for Wisniewski and 54.5 hours for Luberadzka.
Other Settlement Terms
The court found the remaining provisions fair and reasonable. The agreement contained no confidentiality or non-defamation provision. Its release covered only claims related to Animucka’s allegations, including wage, record-keeping, wage-notice, and wage-statement claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Labor Law, and related regulations. The mutual non-disparagement provision was permissible because it allowed truthful statements about the facts underlying Animucka’s claims and the parties’ experience litigating the case.
Disposition
Judge Edgardo Ramos granted the parties’ motion for settlement approval. The court approved the settlement agreement, directed the clerk to terminate the motion, and closed the case. The opinion did not resolve the underlying allegations or determine whether either defendant violated the wage laws.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.