Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 27, 2022

Agapito v. Amir Ram Bagels, Inc.

Judge
Stewart Aaron
Docket
1:18-cv-08079-SDA
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
FlsaFee PetitionCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Agapito v. Amir Ram Bagels, Judge Aaron approved the parties’ Fair Labor Standards Act settlement and dismissed the action with prejudice.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs and defendants who agreed to the settlement, their attorneys regarding the approved fees and costs, and the court, which retained jurisdiction to enforce the agreement.

What happened

In Agapito v. Amir Ram Bagels, the plaintiffs brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The parties told the court they had settled all issues and asked the court to approve their agreement.

The plaintiffs also requested approval of $68,000.24 in attorneys’ fees and $1,978.86 in costs. The court found the settlement and the requested fees fair and reasonable, but made no finding about whether the lawyers’ hourly rates were reasonable.

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
Agapito v. Amir Ram Bagels, Inc. · No. 1:18-cv-08079-SDA
Judge
Stewart Aaron
Date
Dec. 27, 2022

Background

The plaintiffs asserted claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act. On November 3, 2022, the parties advised the court that they had reached a settlement on all issues. On December 21, 2022, they filed a joint letter, their proposed settlement agreement, and related papers asking the court to approve the settlement.

Settlement and Fees

The court reviewed the proposed settlement under the standard requiring approval of certain Fair Labor Standards Act settlements. It found the agreement fair and reasonable in light of the nature and scope of the plaintiffs’ claims, along with the risks and expenses of continuing the litigation.

The plaintiffs requested approval of $68,000.24 in attorneys’ fees and $1,978.86 in costs, totaling $69,979.10. The opinion states that this amount was slightly less than one-third of the total settlement amount and that the billing records showed a lodestar of $134,160.00. The court found the requested fees fair and reasonable, while expressly making no findings about the reasonableness of counsel’s hourly rates.

Ruling

Judge Stewart D. Aaron approved the settlement. The court dismissed the action 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.