Bautista v. Venture 2275 LLC

Background

Francisco Bautista brought this action against Venture 2275 and an individual defendant identified in the opinion as Andy Nisthalal, also named as Anthony Nisthalal. The action included claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The parties submitted a settlement agreement and jointly asked the court to approve it under the Second Circuit’s requirements for reviewing settlements in these cases.

The proposed settlement provided for a gross recovery of $57,500. Plaintiff’s counsel requested one-third of that amount, or $19,166.67, in attorney’s fees, plus reimbursement of litigation expenses. The court previously found the requested fees fair and reasonable but denied approval of the settlement motion because counsel had not supplied supporting evidence for the requested expenses, including the retainer agreement and billing records. The court had twice directed counsel to submit those materials.

Motion for reconsideration

Counsel asked the court to reconsider the August 4, 2020 order. Counsel acknowledged failing to provide the requested records and said the omission was negligent and resulted from misreading the court’s order. Counsel submitted ten exhibits, including proof of a $400 filing fee, process-server charges, witness payments, subpoena-service costs, court-reporter expenses, and an executed retainer agreement with an English translation.

Counsel revised the requested expense reimbursement to $6,600.50, rather than the previously requested amount, and asked for total compensation of $25,767.17: $19,166.67 in attorney’s fees plus $6,600.50 in expenses. Counsel stated that the $90 reduction would go to Bautista and that the defendants would not be required to pay more than the settlement agreement provided.

Ruling

Judge Barbara Moses denied the application. Under Local Civil Rule 6.3, reconsideration requires the moving party to identify controlling decisions or information that the court overlooked and that would have changed its conclusion. The court held that the expense documentation was not overlooked. Instead, plaintiff’s attorneys had failed to comply with prior orders directing them to submit it.

The court accepted counsel’s explanation that the omission was negligent rather than intentional. It nevertheless concluded that the reconsideration rule is designed to ensure finality and prevent a losing party from filling gaps in a failed motion with additional material. The court also stated that it had not disturbed the total settlement award; the reduction in counsel’s award would instead be shifted to the plaintiff’s recovery. The application for reconsideration was therefore denied.