# Brown v. DCD Construction LLC

> District Court, S.D. New York · October 25, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10345525

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. New York
- **Decided:** October 25, 2022
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10345525

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10345525. Public record. Not legal advice.