Dolores v. Titan Construction Services LLC
- Barbara Moses
- 1:19-cv-11056
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Dolores v. Titan Construction Services LLC, Judge Moses denied without prejudice approval of an FLSA settlement because counsel did not document $4,044.24 in expenses.
The 17 plaintiffs, Titan Construction Services LLC, Jose Inaky Garcia, Juan Garcia, and plaintiffs’ attorneys were affected. The ruling prevented approval of the proposed settlement as submitted but allowed the parties to seek approval through a renewed motion with documented expenses capped at $3,005.
What happened
In Jose Alvaro Dolores, et al. v. Titan Construction Services LLC, et al., the parties asked the court to approve a $650,000 settlement of 17 workers’ claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The agreement allocated $434,618.12 to the plaintiffs and $215,381.88 to their attorneys’ fees and expenses.
The court found the proposed $208,332.64 attorney-fee award fair and reasonable. But counsel did not provide invoices or receipts supporting $4,044.24 of the requested expenses, so the court could not approve that part of the request.
Judge Barbara Moses denied the settlement-approval application without prejudice. The parties may file a renewed motion limiting counsel’s expense award to $3,005, with the remaining amount distributed to the plaintiffs proportionally.
The detailed version
- Dolores v. Titan Construction Services LLC · No. 1:19-cv-11056
- Barbara Moses
- Jan. 22, 2021
Background
The parties submitted a joint request for approval of a settlement under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), a federal wage law, and New York Labor Law. The proposed agreement required Titan Construction Services LLC, Jose Inaky Garcia, and Juan Garcia to pay $650,000. The parties stated that the settlement resulted from arm’s-length bargaining before a neutral mediator and represented approximately 57% of the plaintiffs’ estimated actual damages, excluding liquidated damages, attorney’s fees, and costs.
The agreement allocated $434,618.12 among 17 plaintiffs, with individual payments ranging from $7,500 to $80,651.24. It allocated $215,381.88 to plaintiffs’ counsel for fees and expenses. The agreement also contained a limited, one-sided release covering wage-and-hour claims and did not include a confidentiality provision or other restriction on discussing the case or settlement.
Attorney’s Fees and Expenses
The proposed attorney-fee award was $208,332.64, just under one-third of the gross settlement. The amount was also 1.54 times counsel’s lodestar, a calculation based on counsel’s time and billing rates, of $135,425. After applying the factors used to evaluate FLSA settlements, including the plaintiffs’ degree of success, the court found the proposed fee award fair and reasonable.
Counsel separately requested $7,049.24 in expenses, including filing, service, interpretation and translation, and mediation fees. The court accepted the $400 filing fee and two documented billing entries: a $180 service fee and a $2,425 mediation deposit. But counsel supplied no invoices or receipts for the remaining $4,044.24. The court therefore refused to approve reimbursement of that undocumented amount and stated that counsel could not supplement the submission.
Ruling
The court denied the application to approve the agreement without prejudice to a renewed motion limiting the aggregate expense award to $3,005. The court directed that the balance be distributed to the plaintiffs on a proportional basis according to the amounts allocated in the agreement. Any renewed motion was due by February 3, 2021, and could be submitted as a letter-motion or stipulation signed by counsel for all parties. The court also advised the parties to modify the settlement’s payment schedule in light of the order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.