Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 4, 2023

Acevedo v. E&M Logistics Staffing Inc.

Judge
Jesse Furman
Docket
1:23-cv-04460
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
FlsaFee PetitionCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Acevedo v. E&M Logistics Staffing, Judge Furman approved an FLSA settlement and one-third fee share, then dismissed the case with prejudice.

Who this affects

Albaro Acevedo and E&M Logistics Staffing Inc.; the order approves their settlement, addresses the requested attorney’s fees and costs, and ends the case.

What happened

In Albaro Acevedo v. E&M Logistics Staffing Inc., the parties reached a settlement of Acevedo’s Fair Labor Standards Act claim. The court reviewed the settlement and found it fair and reasonable based on the claim, litigation risks, and expected expenses.

The court approved the settlement, subject to a condition that any change to the agreement must receive court approval. It found that attorney’s fees equal to one-third of the $30,000 settlement were appropriate, considered counsel’s time records, and did not decide whether counsel’s $500 hourly rate was reasonable. The court dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning it cannot be refiled, and declared all pending motions moot.

Judge Jesse M. Furman issued the order on December 4, 2023. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Acevedo v. E&M Logistics Staffing Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-04460
Judge
Jesse Furman
Date
Dec. 4, 2023

Background

Albaro Acevedo brought this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), a federal law governing wage and hour requirements. On November 9, 2023, the court was informed that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The court directed the parties to explain why the proposed settlement should be approved and to address the factors used by courts in reviewing FLSA settlements.

The parties submitted a joint letter. Acevedo’s counsel requested $10,318 in attorney’s fees and costs, described as 34% of the $30,000 settlement amount. Counsel also submitted contemporaneous billing records showing 21.75 hours devoted to the case at a fee-shifting hourly rate of $500.

Court’s analysis

The court found the settlement fair and reasonable in light of the nature and scope of Acevedo’s claim and the risks and expenses of additional litigation. The court noted that concerns about employees being pressured into waiving FLSA claims are less significant when the plaintiff no longer works for the defendant, as the court said was true here.

The court stated that attorney’s fees equal to one-third of the recovery were appropriate, consistent with decisions generally approving fees between 30% and 33% in the court’s circuit. The billing records also supported the proposed award. The court expressly stated that it was not making a finding about whether the $500 hourly rate was reasonable, although other courts had approved that rate in similar circumstances.

Disposition

The court approved the settlement subject to the condition that any modification of the settlement agreement must be approved by the court, even if the agreement purports to let the parties modify it without court approval. The court dismissed the case with prejudice, declared all pending motions moot, and directed the Clerk of Court 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.