Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 24, 2023

Perez v. Omnilearn Corp.

Judge
Stewart Aaron
Docket
1:22-cv-00168
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
FlsaFee PetitionCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Perez v. Omnilearn, Judge Aaron approved the FLSA settlement, approved $15,720 in fees and costs, and dismissed the action with prejudice.

Who this affects

Ariel Perez, Omnilearn Corp., the other defendants, and Plaintiff’s attorney were affected by approval of the settlement, fees, dismissal, and continuing enforcement jurisdiction.

What happened

Ariel Perez sued Omnilearn Corp. and others under the Fair Labor Standards Act. After a settlement conference before Judge Stewart D. Aaron, the parties reached an agreement resolving all issues.

The court reviewed the proposed settlement, the risks and costs of continued litigation, and the requested attorney’s fees and costs. It found the settlement fair and reasonable and approved $15,720 in fees and costs, about 38% of the total settlement amount.

In Perez v. Omnilearn Corp. et al., Judge Stewart D. Aaron approved the settlement and dismissed the action with prejudice and without costs except as provided in the settlement agreement. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the agreement, and the Clerk was asked to close the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Perez v. Omnilearn Corp. · No. 1:22-cv-00168
Judge
Stewart Aaron
Date
Jan. 24, 2023

Background

The case involved claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law governing matters such as minimum wages and overtime pay. After a settlement conference with Judge Aaron, the parties reached a settlement resolving all issues.

On December 20, 2022, the court directed the parties to submit the settlement agreement and information addressing whether the agreement was fair and reasonable. The requested information included Plaintiff’s possible recovery, the burdens and expenses of continued litigation, the risks faced by the parties, whether experienced counsel negotiated the agreement at arm’s length, and whether fraud or collusion was possible. The court also asked the parties to address whether a genuine dispute existed about the hours worked or compensation due and how much Plaintiff’s attorney would seek in fees.

Court’s Analysis

The parties submitted the proposed settlement and related papers on January 20, 2023. Based on the settlement materials and the court’s participation in the settlement conference, Judge Aaron found the agreement fair and reasonable in light of the nature and scope of Plaintiff’s individual claims and the risks and expenses of further litigation.

Plaintiff also requested approval of $15,720 in attorney’s fees and costs, approximately 38% of the total settlement amount. The court cited Second Circuit precedent approving fees exceeding 33% of the total recovery and found the requested fees fair and reasonable.

Ruling

The court approved the settlement. It 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.