Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 21, 2022

Parmar v. Fulton Family Pharmacy Inc.

Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Docket
1:21-cv-07826
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
FlsaFee PetitionCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Parmar v. Fulton Family Pharmacy Inc., Judge Ramos granted approval of the revised settlement after finding the requested fees and costs reasonable.

Who this affects

The parties to the settlement and plaintiff’s counsel, whose fees and costs the court approved.

What happened

In Parmar v. Fulton Family Pharmacy Inc., the parties asked the court to approve a revised settlement. The court had previously declined to approve their first application because they had not provided documentation supporting the requested attorney’s fees, although it found the other settlement provisions fair and reasonable.

The court found that $45,000 in attorney’s fees—about one-third of the settlement—and $477.74 in costs were reasonable. It also accepted a lodestar cross-check showing approximately $53,000 in fees based on reasonable hourly rates and hours.

Judge Edgardo Ramos granted the revised motion for settlement approval, approved the agreement, directed the Clerk to terminate the motion, and directed the Clerk to close the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Parmar v. Fulton Family Pharmacy Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-07826
Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Date
Oct. 21, 2022

Background

The parties submitted their first application for settlement approval on July 1, 2022. On July 29, 2022, the Court declined to approve that application without prejudice because the parties had not submitted documentation supporting the attorney’s-fee calculations. The Court found all other provisions fair and reasonable. The parties then filed a revised motion for settlement approval.

Attorney’s Fees and Costs

The Court found the proposed attorney’s fees and costs reasonable. Plaintiff’s counsel would receive $45,000 in attorney’s fees, approximately one-third of the settlement, and $477.74 in costs. The Court noted that courts in the Southern District of New York routinely award one-third of a settlement fund as a reasonable fee in Fair Labor Standards Act cases.

The Court also used the lodestar method as a cross-check. The lodestar—reasonable hourly rates multiplied by the reasonable hours required—was approximately $53,000. Compared with the requested $45,000 fee, this produced a multiplier of approximately 0.85. The Court accepted that multiplier and determined that the requested attorney’s fees and costs were reasonable.

Ruling

The Court found that the revised settlement agreement complied with the requirements discussed in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., and approved the agreement. The Court granted the motion for settlement approval, directed the Clerk to terminate the motion, and directed the Clerk to close the case.

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.