Lebenns v. Frost Productions
- Barbara Moses
- 1:21-cv-11155
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Lebenns v. Frost Productions, Judge Moses approved the parties’ settlement and denied their summary-judgment motions as moot.
Andrew Lebenns and the defendants in the action, including Frost Productions, whose settlement was approved and whose cross-motions for summary judgment were denied as moot.
What happened
In Lebenns v. Frost Productions, Andrew Lebenns and the defendants asked the court to approve their settlement of claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Labor Law, and common law. The parties reached the agreement during a court-supervised settlement conference and were represented by experienced counsel.
The court found the settlement’s financial and nonfinancial terms fair and reasonable. It also found that the attorneys’ fee allocation was not excessive and that the agreement was a reasonable compromise rather than an employer’s improper waiver of legal rights.
Judge Barbara Moses granted the parties’ settlement-approval request, approved the proposed settlement, and denied the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment as moot, meaning the motions were no longer necessary. The court ordered the parties to re-file a proposed dismissal document labeled “with prejudice” for the court to approve.
The detailed version
- Lebenns v. Frost Productions · No. 1:21-cv-11155
- Barbara Moses
- May 29, 2024
Background
The parties jointly asked the court to approve a fully executed Settlement and Release Agreement under the requirement that certain Fair Labor Standards Act settlements receive judicial review. The action includes claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Labor Law, and common law. The parties agreed to the material settlement terms during a judicially supervised settlement conference on April 12, 2024, and later consented to the magistrate judge’s jurisdiction for all purposes. The opinion also states that the parties agreed to settle the plaintiff’s non-Fair Labor Standards Act claims on confidential terms.
Court’s Analysis
The court found that the agreement’s financial and nonfinancial terms were fair and reasonable. It noted that the litigation had been hard-fought and that the terms were vigorously negotiated at arm’s length by experienced counsel on both sides. The court also examined the attorneys’ fee allocation, which represented one-third of the gross settlement amount. It found that the allocation was consistent with the plaintiff’s contingency agreement, below counsel’s lodestar based on contemporaneous time records, and not excessive. The court concluded that the settlement was a reasonable compromise of disputed issues rather than an improper waiver of statutory rights caused by employer overreaching.
Disposition
The parties’ letter-motion to approve the settlement was GRANTED, and the proposed settlement was APPROVED. The parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment were DENIED as MOOT. The court ordered the parties to re-file the proposed Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice, signed by counsel for all parties, so that the court could enter an order approving it. The opinion does not state that the dismissal itself had already been entered.
Classification Rationale
This is a procedural order because the court approved a settlement and resolved the pending summary-judgment motions as moot without deciding the underlying labor-law claims on their merits.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.