Brittle v. Netamorphosis, LLC

Background

Kirsten Brittle brought the action against Netamorphosis, LLC and Lyde Spann for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage law, and the New York Labor Law. The parties first submitted a settlement for approval. The court declined to approve that agreement without prejudice because it barred Brittle from seeking reemployment with the defendants, included a confidentiality provision the court considered impermissible, contained an overly broad release, and lacked supporting evidence for the requested attorney’s fees.

The parties then submitted a revised settlement agreement and an amended letter supporting approval. The revised agreement removed the reemployment restriction and confidentiality provision, narrowed the release to claims related to or arising from wage-and-hour issues, and included documentation supporting the fee request.

Settlement Amount

The revised agreement provided Brittle $21,818.18. It also provided her counsel $7,786.82 in attorney’s fees and $395 in litigation costs. Brittle alleged $27,073.80 in unpaid wages and estimated her maximum possible recovery at $67,342.60. The court noted that her settlement represented 80.6% of her claimed unpaid wages and 32.4% of her estimated maximum recovery.

The court considered Brittle’s stated desire to settle without the risks and delays that could result from the arbitration proceeding. It also noted that the case was at an early stage of arbitration and that the agreement appeared to result from arm’s-length bargaining between counsel, with no evidence of fraud or collusion. The court concluded that Brittle’s settlement payment was fair and reasonable.

Attorney’s Fees

The court independently reviewed the requested attorney’s fees. Counsel reported that the attorneys and staff worked 86.5 hours, with most of the work performed by paralegals billing between $95 and $125 per hour and the remaining work performed by Penn Dodson at $450 per hour. Counsel calculated a lodestar—the reasonable hourly rate multiplied by the reasonable hours worked—of $21,127.

The court observed that the reported hours were high for a case at this early stage and that Dodson had not provided information supporting the requested $450 hourly rate. The court nevertheless determined that it did not need to resolve whether those figures were reasonable. Even assuming the hours were cut in half and billed at the low end of the paralegal range, the proposed fee would produce a multiplier of 1.9 times the lodestar. The court found that this still supported a fair and reasonable fee award.

Ruling

Judge Edgardo Ramos granted the parties’ request for approval of the revised settlement agreement. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.