Opinion

Brown v. DCD Construction LLC

Court
District Court, S.D. New York
Filed
Oct 25, 2022
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 27.5%

The opinion

USDC SDNY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #:

manana nnn nnn nnn nnn nna nnn cncncccnans K DATE FILED:_10/25/2022

KURELL BROWN, on behalf of himself and similarly .

situated individuals, :

Plaintiffs, 19-cv-4892 (LJL)

DCD CONSTRUCTION, LLC., DENIS PORTAEV,

ALEKSEI KARPOV, and EVGENY MAKARIN, :

Defendants.

LEWIS J. LIMAN, United States District Judge:

The parties in this matter have reached a settlement in principle. See Dkt. No. 112. The

case was brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seg. Under

current Second Circuit law, any settlement—including any proposed attorney’s fee award—must

be scrutinized by the Court to ensure that it is fair. See Fisher v. SD Protection Inc., 948 F.3d

593, 600 (2d. Cir. 2020); Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2015).

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that, on or before November 9, 2022, the parties

must submit to the Court a joint letter explaining the basis for the proposed settlement and why it

should be approved as fair and reasonable, with reference to the factors discussed in Wolinsky v.

Scholastic, Inc., 900 F. Supp. 2d 332, 335-36 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). The letter should address any

confidentiality provisions, non-disparagement provisions, or releases in the proposed settlement

agreement. The letter should also address, if applicable, any attorney’s fee award to plaintiffs’

counsel (with documentation to support the latter, if appropriate) consistent with the principles

set forth in Fisher, 948 F.3d at 600. It is not sufficient to state the proportion of the requested

attorney’s fee to the overall settlement amount. Rather, the reasonableness of attorney’s fees

must be evaluated with reference to “adequate documentation supporting the attorneys’ fees and

costs,” which “should normally [include] contemporaneous time records indicating, for each

attorney, the date, the hours expended, and the nature of the work done.” J/d.; see Strauss v. Little

Fish Corp., 2020 WL 4041511, at *9 (S.D.N-Y. July 17, 2020) (discussing the requirements for

adequately justifying an attorney’s fee). Failure to provide the appropriate or sufficient

documentation could result in the Court rejecting the proposed fee award.

The parties are directed to appear telephonically for a settlement approval hearing on

November 16, 2022 at 3:30 p.m. Plaintiff shall appear at the hearing and, if necessary, with an

interpreter. The parties are directed to dial (888) 251-2909 and use the access code 2123101.

Any pending motions are DISMISSED as moot, and all other conferences and deadlines

are CANCELLED.

SO ORDERED.

Bae

Dated: October 25, 2022 ge MOO so.

New York, New York LEWIS J. LIMAN

United States District Judge

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.