Jimenez v. Borinquen Super Market, Inc
- Barbara Moses
- 1:21-cv-08620
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Jimenez v. Borinquen Super Market, Judge Moses required documentation before approving the proposed settlement’s attorney-fee amount.
The order affects Guadalupe Jimenez, plaintiff’s counsel, and defendants Cofaci Foods Inc. (doing business as Boriquen Supermarket) and Lillian Castillo because it requires additional expense documentation or a change to the proposed settlement before the attorney-fee award can be approved.
What happened
In Jimenez v. Cofaci Foods Inc., Guadalupe Jimenez and the defendants asked the court to approve a settlement and release agreement. The proposed settlement would pay $28,000, including $10,240.32 to Jimenez’s lawyer.
The parties said the lawyer’s payment included actual litigation expenses. But Jimenez’s contingency agreement called for a fee equal to 33.33% of the recovery, leaving a $906.99 difference that the settlement papers did not explain.
Judge Barbara Moses did not approve the proposed fee amount at this stage. She ordered Jimenez’s lawyer to provide documentation for the expenses, other than the filing fee, by October 17, 2024, or the parties could change the settlement to keep the payment within the contingency agreement’s stated range.
The detailed version
- Jimenez v. Borinquen Super Market, Inc · No. 1:21-cv-08620
- Barbara Moses
- Oct. 10, 2024
Background
The court reviewed a joint letter-motion dated September 25, 2024, asking it to approve the parties’ Settlement and Release Agreement. The request was made under the court’s obligation to review certain employment settlements for fairness.
The proposed settlement payment was $28,000. Of that amount, $10,240.32, or 36.57%, would go to plaintiff’s counsel. The parties stated that the amount reflected actual litigation expenses. But the plaintiff’s contingency agreement provided for an attorney-fee award equal to 33.33% of all sums recovered. The court identified a $906.99, or 3.24%, difference between the proposed award and the percentage in that agreement. Neither the settlement agreement nor the joint letter explained the difference.
Court’s analysis
The court stated that any requested attorney fees and costs must be supported by adequate documentation, including authenticated time and expense records. Because the proposed award exceeded the percentage in the contingency agreement, the court required documentation showing the expenses underlying the additional amount. The required documentation did not include the filing fee.
Ruling
Judge Barbara Moses ordered plaintiff’s counsel to submit adequate documentation supporting those expenses no later than October 17, 2024. Alternatively, the parties could modify the settlement agreement so that the award remained within the range contemplated by the contingency agreement. The order did not approve the proposed attorney-fee award at that stage.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.