Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 5, 2024

Myers v. Life Alert Emergency Response, Inc.

Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Docket
1:23-cv-03609
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
6
FlsaEmploymentCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Myers v. Life Alert, Judge Ramos approved the parties’ $30,000 settlement of federal and New York wage claims.

Who this affects

Anthony Myers and Life Alert Emergency Response, Inc.; the approved settlement provides Myers $19,682 and counsel $10,318 in fees and costs.

What happened

Myers v. Life Alert Emergency Response, Inc. involved Anthony Myers’s claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. Myers asked the court to approve the parties’ proposed settlement.

The agreement provided $30,000 total: $19,682 for Myers, $9,841 in attorney fees, and $477 in costs. The court found the amount fair and reasonable because it represented about 64.8% of Myers’s estimated maximum recovery and resolved disputed issues and litigation risks.

Judge Ramos also found the fees, costs, release, and other settlement terms reasonable. He granted the settlement-approval request and directed the clerk to close the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Myers v. Life Alert Emergency Response, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-03609
Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Date
Jan. 5, 2024

Background

Anthony Myers brought claims against Life Alert Emergency Response, Inc. under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. Myers moved for approval of the parties’ proposed settlement.

Because the settlement resolved Fair Labor Standards Act claims, the court explained that private settlement required approval by the district court or the Department of Labor. The agreement had to be fair and reasonable. The court considered the proposed recovery, the parties’ litigation risks and expenses, the negotiations, and the possibility of fraud or collusion.

Settlement Amount

The agreement provided a total recovery of $30,000. Myers would receive $19,682. His counsel would receive $9,841 in attorney fees and reimbursement of $477 in costs, for total fees and costs of $10,318.

Myers estimated that his maximum recovery would be $10,192.83 in unpaid wages, $10,192.83 in liquidated damages, and $10,000 for wage-notice and wage-statement claims, totaling $30,385.66. The amount Myers would receive represented approximately 64.8% of that estimated maximum recovery.

The motion stated that Life Alert maintained Myers had been correctly compensated for all hours worked. The parties also disputed whether Myers received a bona fide meal break for which a deduction from work time was made. The court found that the settlement provided value by avoiding the risks and delays of litigation, resolved genuine disputes, and reflected a reasonable compromise reached through arm’s-length negotiations by experienced labor and employment attorneys.

Attorney Fees and Costs

The court found the requested fees and costs reasonable. Counsel sought attorney fees equal to one-third of the settlement after deducting costs. The court noted that one-third fees are routinely approved in Fair Labor Standards Act cases in the district.

Counsel submitted billing records showing that attorney Abdul K. Hassan spent 25.37 hours at a proposed rate of $500 per hour, producing a lodestar of $12,685. A lodestar is the reasonable hourly rate multiplied by the reasonable number of hours worked. The requested $9,841 in fees produced a lodestar multiplier of approximately 0.78 after excluding costs. The court accepted that multiplier and approved the requested $10,318 in fees and costs. The court also noted that the request was consistent with Myers’s retainer agreement.

Other Settlement Terms

The court found the remaining provisions fair and reasonable. The release covered only wage-and-hour claims, claims asserted in this action, and claims arising from Myers’s employment with Life Alert. The agreement did not include objectionable release provisions, non-disparagement provisions, or confidentiality provisions.

Disposition

Judge Ramos concluded that the proposed settlement agreement was fair and reasonable and granted the request for settlement approval. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion and close the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 6-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.