Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 3, 2020

Harding v. NYC Crane Hoist & Rigging, LLC

Judge
Barbara Moses
Docket
1:19-cv-11948
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
FlsaEmploymentFee Petition
In one sentence

In Harding v. NYC Crane Hoist & Rigging, LLC, Judge Moses approved settlement of FLSA and NYLL claims and dismissed the action with prejudice.

Who this affects

Marvil Harding and Alton Powis, their attorney and counsel, and defendants NYC Crane Hoist & Rigging, LLC and Thomas Auringer. The approved settlements resolve the plaintiffs’ FLSA and New York Labor Law claims, and the action was dismissed with prejudice.

What happened

In Harding v. NYC Crane Hoist & Rigging, LLC, Marvil Harding and Alton Powis settled their wage-related claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law against NYC Crane Hoist & Rigging, LLC and Thomas Auringer. They asked the court to approve the settlements.

The settlement agreements required payments of $13,181.66 to Harding and $12,272.58 to Powis. Harding would receive $8,589.11, and Powis would receive $7,983.00; their lawyer would receive the remaining amounts as fees and expense reimbursement. The agreements contained no confidentiality provision, and the court found the releases, payment terms, and requested fees fair.

Judge Barbara Moses found both agreements fair and reasonable and approved the proposed settlements. She ordered that the action be dismissed with prejudice and without costs, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Harding v. NYC Crane Hoist & Rigging, LLC · No. 1:19-cv-11948
Judge
Barbara Moses
Date
Dec. 3, 2020

Background

Marvil Harding and Alton Powis settled their claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law against NYC Crane Hoist & Rigging, LLC and Thomas Auringer. Through two joint letters dated October 27, 2020, the parties asked the court to approve the settlements under the requirement for judicial review of FLSA settlements established in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. The court also directed the plaintiffs to submit a supplemental letter with their retainer agreements and their lawyer’s time and expense records.

Settlement Terms

The Harding Agreement required defendants to pay $13,181.66. Harding would receive $8,589.11, while his attorney, Abdul K. Hassan, would receive $4,592.55 as a fee award and reimbursement of expenses, including filing and service costs. The fee was calculated as one-third of Harding’s gross settlement payment.

The Powis Agreement required defendants to pay $12,272.58. Powis would receive $7,983.00, while his counsel would receive $4,289.53 as a fee award and expense reimbursement. That fee also was calculated as one-third of the gross settlement payment. The agreements provided for installment payments to the plaintiffs and counsel, with portions reported on Internal Revenue Service Forms W-2 and 1099-MISC.

Each agreement contained mutual releases. The defendants released the respective plaintiff from claims they had or might have against him, while each plaintiff released the defendants from claims connected with his employment. The court found that the releases favored the plaintiffs because the plaintiffs’ releases were narrower than the releases they received. The agreements had no confidentiality clause or other restriction on any party’s ability to discuss the case or settlement.

Attorney Fees

The proposed fees were consistent with the plaintiffs’ contingency-fee agreements and were lower than counsel’s lodestar. A lodestar is a cross-check that multiplies reasonable hours by a reasonable hourly rate. Counsel calculated an aggregate lodestar of $14,604 using a $600 hourly rate and $10,953 using a reduced $450 fee-shifting rate. The court stated that this analysis further supported the fairness of the proposed fees.

Ruling

Judge Barbara Moses found both settlement agreements, including the attorney-fee awards and expense reimbursements, fair and reasonable. The court therefore approved the proposed settlements. It ordered that the action be dismissed with prejudice and without costs and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.

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.