Shiwpaul v. Al-Boro Security, Inc.
- Stewart Aaron
- 1:23-cv-08001
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Shiwpaul v. Al-Boro Security, Judge Aaron approved the parties’ Fair Labor Standards Act settlement, fees, and costs, then dismissed the case with prejudice.
The settlement and dismissal affect Radica Shiwpaul, the other plaintiffs described as similarly situated, and Al-Boro Security, Inc.
What happened
In Shiwpaul v. Al-Boro Security, Inc., the parties reached a settlement after a settlement conference. The case included one or more claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage-and-hour law.
The court reviewed the proposed settlement and concluded that it was fair and reasonable in light of the claims, the risks of further litigation, and the expenses involved. The court also found no concerns about the settlement’s releases or confidentiality provisions. It approved $2,010.67 in attorneys’ fees and $468.00 in costs.
Judge Stewart D. Aaron approved the settlement and dismissed the action with prejudice, without costs except as stated in the settlement agreement. The Clerk of Court was asked to close the case.
The detailed version
- Shiwpaul v. Al-Boro Security, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-08001
- Stewart Aaron
- Mar. 1, 2024
Background
Radica Shiwpaul brought this action individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated against Al-Boro Security, Inc., doing business as Alboro National Security. The case contained one or more claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The parties reached a settlement at a settlement conference before Judge Aaron on January 29, 2024, and later consented to have all proceedings handled by him.
The court had directed the parties to submit the settlement agreement and an explanation addressing whether the settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. This is a court review of Fair Labor Standards Act settlements. The parties submitted the required materials on February 28, 2024.
Court’s Analysis
The court found the proposed settlement fair and reasonable, considering the nature and scope of the plaintiffs’ claims and the risks and expenses of additional litigation. It also found that the settlement did not raise other concerns identified in the court’s review, including overbroad releases or restrictive confidentiality provisions.
The plaintiffs requested approval of $2,010.67 in attorneys’ fees and $468.00 in costs. The opinion states that the requested fee represented one-third of the settlement amount after costs and was based on a contingency-fee agreement. The court found the fee agreement reasonable and the requested fees consistent with that agreement. It also found the costs reasonable, including $402 in filing fees and $66 for service of process.
Disposition
The court approved the settlement, approved the requested attorneys’ fees, and found the requested costs reasonable. The action was dismissed with prejudice and without costs except as stated in the settlement agreement. The Clerk of Court was requested to close the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.