Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 19, 2023

Paulino v. Veritas Property Management L.L.C.

Judge
Jesse Furman
Docket
1:22-cv-08167
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
FlsaFee PetitionCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Paulino v. Veritas Property Management, Judge Furman approved an FLSA settlement, addressed attorney’s fees, and dismissed the case with prejudice.

Who this affects

Louis Paulino and the defendants, including Veritas Property Management, LLC, are affected by the approved settlement, the attorney’s-fee ruling, and the dismissal of the case with prejudice.

What happened

Louis Paulino and the defendants told the court they had agreed to settle his Fair Labor Standards Act wage claim. The court reviewed their explanation of the proposed settlement and the risks and costs of continuing the case.

The court found the settlement fair and reasonable. It also found that attorney’s fees equal to one-third of the recovery were appropriate and saw no basis to reduce the requested $25,388 in fees and costs, because there were no additional participating plaintiffs and the case was not a group action.

Judge Jesse M. Furman approved the settlement, subject to a requirement that the court approve any later change to the agreement. He dismissed the case with prejudice, ruled that all pending motions were moot, and directed the clerk to close the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Paulino v. Veritas Property Management L.L.C. · No. 1:22-cv-08167
Judge
Jesse Furman
Date
Apr. 19, 2023

Background

Louis Paulino brought this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law governing employee wages and working time, against Veritas Property Management, LLC, and other defendants. The parties notified the court that they had reached a settlement. The court had previously required them to submit a joint letter explaining why the proposed settlement should be approved.

Settlement Approval

After reviewing the parties’ letter, the court found that the settlement was fair and reasonable in light of the nature and scope of Paulino’s individual claim, as well as the risks and expenses of further litigation. The court noted that concerns about employees being pressured to waive wage claims were less significant because Paulino no longer worked for the defendant.

The court approved the settlement on the condition that any modification to the settlement agreement receive court approval, even if the agreement stated that the parties could modify it without court approval.

Attorney’s Fees

Paulino also sought approval of $25,388 in attorney’s fees and costs. The court acknowledged that the requested award was high compared with the size of Paulino’s claim and recovery, but found no basis to reduce it because there were no additional participating plaintiffs and the case was not a collective action. The court stated that attorney’s fees equal to one-third of the recovery were appropriate under decisions from the district courts in the circuit.

Disposition

The court approved the settlement subject to the modification-approval condition. It dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning the case could not be brought again, ruled that all pending motions were moot, and directed the clerk to 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.