Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 8, 2020

Hickey v. Ruby's Midtown LLC

Judge
Vernon Broderick
Docket
1:19-cv-07452
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
EmploymentFlsaFee Petition
In one sentence

In Hickey v. Ruby’s Midtown LLC, Judge Broderick approved the parties’ $22,000 Fair Labor Standards Act settlement and closed the case.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs, defendants, and plaintiffs’ counsel were affected: the agreement provided $14,674 for the plaintiffs, $7,326 for attorneys’ fees and costs, and ended the case after court approval.

What happened

Hickey v. Ruby’s Midtown LLC was a wage dispute under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The parties reached a settlement and asked the court to approve it.

The agreement provided $22,000 total: $14,674 for the plaintiffs and $7,326 for attorneys’ fees and costs. The court considered the potential recovery, litigation risks and costs, negotiations, and possible fraud or collusion.

Judge Vernon S. Broderick found the settlement and requested fees fair and reasonable, approved the agreement, directed the Clerk to terminate open motions, and closed the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Hickey v. Ruby's Midtown LLC · No. 1:19-cv-07452
Judge
Vernon Broderick
Date
Sept. 8, 2020

Background

The plaintiffs brought a case under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The court was informed that the parties had reached a settlement. They submitted their settlement agreement for court approval because FLSA claims may not be privately settled with prejudice without approval from the district court or the Department of Labor.

Legal standard

Because there was no Department of Labor approval, the court evaluated whether the agreement was fair and reasonable. It considered the total circumstances, including the plaintiffs’ possible recovery, the burdens and expenses of continuing the case, the litigation risks, whether experienced counsel negotiated at arm’s length, and the possibility of fraud or collusion. The court also evaluated the requested attorneys’ fees and costs, which must be supported by adequate documentation.

Settlement amount

The agreement provided for a total settlement of $22,000. Of that amount, $7,326 would be paid for attorneys’ fees and costs, leaving a total distribution of $14,674 to the plaintiffs. Counsel represented that the plaintiffs’ potential backpay recovery was $14,341.65, without including liquidated damages. The court found the settlement amount sufficient to compensate the plaintiffs for their claims.

The court also found that the agreement appeared to result from arm’s-length negotiations between experienced counsel. The parties had reached the settlement before discovery, and continuing the case could require additional proceedings, motions, and a trial. The court found no basis to believe that fraud or collusion was involved.

Attorneys’ fees

The requested $7,326 in fees and costs represented about one-third of the total settlement. Plaintiffs’ counsel submitted time records and supporting documents showing more than $8,224 in fees. The court concluded that the requested amount was reasonable because one-third fees are regularly approved in FLSA cases, the request was less than the calculated lodestar, and the hourly rate of $400 for a law-firm partner with 13 years of experience was reasonable.

Ruling

The court found that the proposed settlement agreement, including the requested attorneys’ fees, was fair and reasonable and approved it. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate any open motions and close the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-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.