Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 29, 2020

Fenton v. Criterion Worldwide

Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Docket
1:18-cv-10224
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
EmploymentFlsaFee PetitionCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Fenton v. Criterion Worldwide, Judge Ramos approved the wage-settlement agreement and dismissed the case with prejudice.

Who this affects

Siobhan Fenton, the proposed similarly situated plaintiffs, Criterion Worldwide, Lewis Morton, and Fenton’s counsel were affected by approval of the settlement and dismissal of the case.

What happened

In Fenton v. Criterion Worldwide, Siobhan Fenton sued Criterion Worldwide and Lewis Morton over alleged unpaid overtime, minimum-wage violations, and New York wage-notice and recordkeeping violations. The claims arose under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

The parties proposed a $7,500 net settlement. Fenton estimated that she could recover about $27,235.84 if she fully prevailed, but the parties identified disputes and litigation risks. The agreement also provided about $2,354.62 in attorney’s fees, which the court reviewed using counsel’s billing records.

Judge Ramos found the fees reasonable and concluded that the agreement complied with the required settlement-review standards. The court approved the agreement, dismissed the case with prejudice, and directed the clerk to close the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Fenton v. Criterion Worldwide · No. 1:18-cv-10224
Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Date
Dec. 29, 2020

Background

Siobhan Fenton brought the action individually and on behalf of others similarly situated against Criterion Worldwide and Lewis Morton. She alleged unpaid overtime wages, minimum-wage violations, and violations of wage-notice and recordkeeping requirements under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL).

On March 27, 2020, the court granted the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the claims against Criterion. On December 9, 2020, the court denied the parties’ request to approve their proposed settlement because it did not include Fenton’s counsel’s billing records. The pending supplemental letter supplied those records.

Settlement and attorney’s fees

Fenton estimated that a full recovery on her claims could total approximately $27,235.84 in damages and penalties. The proposed agreement provided a net settlement of $7,500, with the parties citing bona fide disputes and litigation risks. The agreement also provided approximately $2,354.62 in attorney’s fees, or about 31% of the settlement amount.

The court reviewed the fees by comparing them with the lodestar, which is the reasonable hourly rate multiplied by the reasonable number of hours worked. Counsel’s records showed hourly rates of $450 for partners and between $200 and $250 for associates and paralegals. The court found those rates within the reasonable range approved in the Southern District of New York. It also found that counsel reasonably spent about 88 hours on the case, producing a lodestar of $28,595. The proposed fee was less than 10% of that amount, so the court found it reasonable.

Ruling

Judge Ramos held that the proposed agreement complied with Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. The court approved the agreement, dismissed the case with prejudice, and directed the clerk of court to close the case.

Disposition

The settlement agreement was approved. The case was dismissed with prejudice.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.