Brown v. City of New York
- Jesse Furman
- 1:23-cv-08336
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Brown v. City of New York, Judge Furman questioned the proposed $11,000 attorney-fee award and ordered revised records and a settlement conference.
The parties and the plaintiffs’ attorney, because the proposed settlement and $11,000 attorney’s-fee amount remained under the court’s review.
What happened
In Brown v. City of New York, the parties asked the court to approve a proposed settlement involving claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The agreement would pay Stephanie Brown $2,500 and Christopher Philips $1,600, plus $11,000 in the defendant’s payment of the plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees.
After a preliminary review, the court questioned whether the proposed fee was reasonable. It noted that the fee was nearly three times the plaintiffs’ combined awards and questioned billing for communications with potential plaintiffs who did not join the case.
Judge Jesse M. Furman ordered the parties to submit revised time records by June 26, 2024, excluding time spent soliciting other clients, and, if appropriate, a new proposed fee award. He also scheduled a June 28 conference to discuss the fee and approval of the settlement.
The detailed version
- Brown v. City of New York · No. 1:23-cv-08336
- Jesse Furman
- June 21, 2024
Background
The parties submitted a joint request for approval of a proposed settlement in this case, which includes a claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The agreement provides for attorney’s fees to be paid by the City of New York. The parties submitted the plaintiffs’ attorney’s contemporaneous time records to support the requested fee.
The settlement provides Stephanie Brown with $2,500 and Christopher Philips with $1,600. It also proposes $11,000 in attorney’s fees. The opinion states that the proposed fee is nearly three times the plaintiffs’ combined awards.
Court’s Analysis
On preliminary review, the court was skeptical that $11,000 was a reasonable attorney’s fee under the FLSA. The court noted that a fee is not automatically improper merely because it is disproportionate to a plaintiff’s recovery, but questioned whether counsel could recover fees for time spent communicating with potential opt-in plaintiffs who did not join the action. The opinion cites prior decisions concerning the reasonableness of FLSA attorney’s fees and compensation for work unrelated to the plaintiffs who brought the case.
Order
The court ordered the parties to submit revised time records by June 26, 2024, omitting time spent soliciting other clients, and to submit a new proposed fee award if appropriate. The court also ordered the parties to appear for a conference on June 28, 2024, to discuss the reasonableness of the proposed attorney’s fee and approval of the proposed settlement. The opinion does not state that the settlement was approved or that the fee was awarded.
Disposition
The order requires additional submissions and a conference; it does not finally approve the proposed settlement or attorney’s-fee amount.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.