Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 18, 2025

Moore v. FQSR, LLC d/b/a KBP Foods

Judge
Vernon Broderick
Docket
1:24-cv-05835
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
FlsaFee PetitionCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Darinique Moore v. FSQR, Judge Broderick required fee-and-cost documentation before deciding whether to approve the FLSA/NYLL settlement.

Who this affects

Darinique Moore, FSQR, LLC d/b/a KBP Foods, and their attorneys are affected because the parties must submit documentation supporting the requested attorney fees and costs within 30 days.

What happened

Darinique Moore and FSQR, LLC d/b/a KBP Foods asked the court to approve their proposed settlement of retaliation claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The opinion does not state the settlement amount or other settlement terms.

The court explained that private settlements of Fair Labor Standards Act claims generally require court or Department of Labor approval and must be fair and reasonable. Moore’s lawyer requested one-third of Moore’s total recovery as an attorney-fee award but provided no billing records, hourly rate, or total time spent on the case.

Judge Vernon S. Broderick ordered the parties to submit, within 30 days, evidence supporting the requested attorney fees and costs, including dated billing records showing each attorney’s hours and work and records supporting any costs. The order does not state that the settlement was approved or that the request was denied.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Moore v. FQSR, LLC d/b/a KBP Foods · No. 1:24-cv-05835
Judge
Vernon Broderick
Date
July 18, 2025

Background

The parties submitted a joint letter-motion asking the court to approve a proposed settlement of retaliation claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (NYLL). The opinion does not provide the settlement amount or describe the other settlement terms.

Legal standard

The court stated that the parties may not privately settle FLSA claims with prejudice without approval from the district court or the Department of Labor. The court therefore must determine whether the settlement is fair and reasonable by considering the overall circumstances, including the plaintiff’s possible recovery, the burdens and expenses the settlement would avoid, the litigation risks, whether the agreement resulted from arm’s-length negotiations between experienced counsel, and the possibility of fraud or collusion.

The court also explained that any request for attorney fees must be assessed separately. Supporting materials ordinarily must include contemporaneous billing records showing, for each attorney, the date, hours worked, and nature of the work. The court may compare the requested fee with a lodestar amount, calculated using a reasonable hourly rate multiplied by a reasonable number of hours.

Fee and cost documentation

Plaintiff’s counsel requested attorney fees equal to one-third of Plaintiff’s total recovery. Counsel did not provide billing records, state the billing rate, or state the amount of time spent on the case. Plaintiff argued that a contractual contingency-fee arrangement can itself be reasonable without a lodestar comparison and cited one case supporting that position. The court stated, however, that most courts in the circuit conduct a lodestar cross-check and that the Second Circuit had not eliminated the need to examine documentation supporting fee awards in FLSA cases.

Ruling

Judge Vernon S. Broderick ordered the parties to submit, within 30 days of the order, evidence providing a factual basis for the requested attorney fees and costs. The required support includes contemporaneous billing records for each attorney and billing records for any requested costs. The opinion does not state that the settlement was approved or that the joint letter-motion was denied.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.