Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 1, 2022

White v. Northstar Media, Inc.

Judge
Katherine Menendez
Docket
0:21-cv-02770
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
3
FlsaFee PetitionCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In White v. Northstar Media, Judge Menendez denied without prejudice approval of an FLSA settlement because the parties did not provide enough information about attorney fees.

Who this affects

Alanea White, Northstar Media, Inc., and the attorneys whose fees were included in the proposed settlement.

What happened

In White v. Northstar Media, Inc., the parties asked the court to approve a settlement of Alanea White’s claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The proposed settlement divided a total payment of $20,537 among three parts, including $8,537 for the plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and costs.

The parties argued that the court should review only the payment to White, not the reasonableness of the attorneys’ fees. The court explained that fees negotiated together with an employee’s settlement payment are subject to review. The parties did not show whether the fees were negotiated separately or provide enough information to evaluate whether the fees were reasonable.

Judge Katherine Menendez denied the joint motion for approval of the settlement without prejudice. The court directed the parties to submit a new motion addressing these issues and providing a supplemental declaration about whether the fees were negotiated separately.

The detailed version

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

Case
White v. Northstar Media, Inc. · No. 0:21-cv-02770
Judge
Katherine Menendez
Date
Apr. 1, 2022

Background

The court considered the parties’ joint motion for approval of a settlement involving Alanea White’s claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage-and-hour law. The proposed settlement provided for a total payment of $20,537.00, with $8,537.00 allocated to White’s attorneys for fees and costs.

Attorney-fee review

The parties’ proposed order stated that the court should review only the payment to White and should not evaluate the reasonableness of the attorneys’ fees. The court rejected the parties’ characterization of Eighth Circuit precedent as incomplete. It explained that when attorney fees are negotiated separately from, and without regard to, the employee’s FLSA claim, the employer’s payment to counsel does not affect whether the employee received an adequate settlement. But if the fees were negotiated jointly with the employee’s payment, the fees are subject to review.

The parties did not address whether the fees were negotiated separately. The court observed that the settlement was described as one agreement reached on a particular date, and that the total payment was presented as one amount to be divided among three recipients or purposes. The record therefore did not suggest that the fee negotiations were separate.

The court also found insufficient information to decide whether the fees were reasonable. It explained that courts typically use the lodestar method, which multiplies the hours reasonably worked by the applicable hourly rate. The parties provided neither the hours worked nor each attorney’s rate, and they supplied no evidence showing that the hours or rates were reasonable.

Disposition

Judge Katherine Menendez denied without prejudice the Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement. The court instructed the parties to resubmit the motion with a memorandum addressing the attorney-fee issues and a supplemental declaration showing whether the fees were negotiated separately.

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.