Modny v. Foley Hoag LLP
- Jesse Furman
- 1:24-cv-05586
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Modny v. Foley Hoag LLP, Judge Furman approved the Fair Labor Standards Act settlement, addressed fees, and dismissed the case with prejudice.
Gregory Modny, Foley Hoag LLP, and Modny’s attorney; the settlement and dismissal ended the case and required court approval for any settlement modification.
What happened
Gregory Modny and Foley Hoag LLP told the court they had reached a settlement in an action brought in part under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage law. The court asked them to explain why the proposed settlement should be approved.
After reviewing the parties’ explanation, the court found the settlement fair and reasonable in light of Modny’s individual claim, the risks of further litigation, and the likely expenses. The court also addressed Modny’s request for $17,211.67 in attorney’s fees and costs, stating that fees equal to one-third of the recovery were appropriate. It required court approval for any later change to the settlement agreement.
Judge Jesse M. Furman approved the settlement subject to that condition, dismissed the case with prejudice, and ruled that all pending motions were moot. The court directed the Clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- Modny v. Foley Hoag LLP · No. 1:24-cv-05586
- Jesse Furman
- May 12, 2025
Background
Gregory Modny brought this action against Foley Hoag LLP in part under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), a federal law governing wages and working conditions. The parties notified the court that they had reached a settlement. The court had previously ordered them to submit a joint letter explaining the proposed settlement and addressing the factors used to evaluate FLSA settlements.
Settlement Approval
After reviewing the parties’ May 8, 2025 letter, the court found that the settlement of the FLSA claims was fair and reasonable. The court considered the nature and scope of Modny’s individual claim and the risks and expenses associated with continuing the litigation.
The court imposed one condition: any modification of the settlement agreement must receive court approval, even if the agreement appears to allow the parties to modify it without court approval.
Attorney’s Fees
Modny also sought approval of $17,211.67 in attorney’s fees and costs. The court noted that the proposed fee was high compared with the size of Modny’s claim and recovery, but found no basis to reduce it because there were no additional plaintiffs who had joined the case and the fee award was based on an agreement between Modny and his attorney. The court stated that fees equal to one-third of the recovery were appropriate under decisions from the district courts in that circuit. The court did not make findings about whether counsel’s hourly rates were reasonable or how many hours counsel worked.
Disposition
The court approved the settlement subject to the condition concerning modifications. It dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning the case was terminated in a way that bars refiling the same case. It also ruled that all pending motions were moot and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.