Berger v. Wang

Background

Melissa Berger brought the action individually and on behalf of her infant children, A.G. and M.B., under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law. The parties later advised the court that they had agreed to settle all claims. Because the settlement resolved claims on behalf of the children, the court had to review and approve it under Southern District of New York Local Civil Rule 83.2(a).

Berger submitted a proposed order approving the settlement and supporting materials. The court considered the nature and scope of the claims, the risks and costs of continuing the litigation, the parties’ limited discovery, counsel’s experience, counsel’s affidavit, and Berger’s view as guardian that the settlement served the children’s best interests. The portions of the settlement awarded to A.G. and M.B. were to be placed in interest-bearing savings accounts and released to them when they turned eighteen.

Court’s Analysis

The court concluded that the settlement was fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the children. It noted the strong presumption that a settlement is fair and reasonable when it was reached through arm’s-length negotiations without collusion, the attorneys have relevant experience, and sufficient discovery occurred for counsel to evaluate the case. The court found that presumption applicable here and gave significant weight to Berger’s assessment as the children’s guardian.

Berger also sought approval of $92,621.01 in attorney’s fees and costs. The court explained that the usual starting point for evaluating fees is the lodestar—the reasonable hourly rate multiplied by the reasonable number of hours required. The court did not decide whether counsel’s cited hourly rates of $700 for counsel and $150 for paralegals were reasonable because the requested fee amount was not calculated using those rates. Instead, it found the requested fees reasonable in light of a lodestar based on reasonable rates approved in similar cases and because the fees represented roughly 31 percent of the settlement. It also found the requested costs reasonable based on the submitted documentation.

Ruling

Judge Jesse M. Furman approved the settlement, subject to two conditions. Any modification of the settlement agreement must receive court approval, even if the agreement says the parties may modify it themselves. Also, if the agreement permits counsel to deduct fees and costs from settlement installments, counsel may deduct no more than a pro rata share from each installment.

The court approved the settlement subject to those conditions and approved the requested attorney’s fees and costs of $92,621.01. It dismissed the case with prejudice, ruled that all pending motions were moot, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. The opinion does not identify the underlying factual allegations or state the amount allocated to each child.