Opinion

Brown v. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center

Court
District Court, S.D. New York
Filed
Sep 6, 2023
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 27.7%

The opinion

USDC SDNY

DOCUMENT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #:

cnet □□□ ncaa naan □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ DATE FILED:_09/06/2023

BROWN, :

Plaintiff, :

: 22-cv-10144 (LJL)

-V- :

: ORDER

MEMORIAL SLOAN-KETTERING CANCER :

CENTER, :

Defendant. :

LEWIS J. LIMAN, United States District Judge:

Plaintiffs counsel in this matter has informed the Court that the parties have reached a

settlement in principle. Dkt. No. 25. The case was brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards

Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seg. Under 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 October 6, 2023, the parties must

submit to the Court, along with the settlement papers, 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 plaintiff's 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.” /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 Cheeks fairness hearing on October

13, 2023 at 3:30 p.m. Plaintiff shall appear at the hearing. 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, including trial and pretrial deadlines.

SO ORDERED.

a 3

Dated: September 6, 2023 ME ee

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.