White v. Northstar Media, Inc.
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:21-cv-02770
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
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.
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
- White v. Northstar Media, Inc. · No. 0:21-cv-02770
- Katherine Menendez
- 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.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.