Smith v. BRP Development Corporation
- Barbara Moses
- 1:19-cv-11794
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Smith v. BRP Development Corporation, Judge Moses required settlement materials and briefing before considering approval.
Rashiem Smith, his counsel, and the defendants were affected because the court required additional settlement documents and briefing before considering approval.
What happened
In Smith v. BRP Development Corporation, the parties asked the court to approve their proposed settlement. The opinion does not say that the court approved or rejected the settlement.
The court said plaintiff’s lawyer had not provided the required retainer agreement or expense documentation. It also requested a written explanation of whether it was fair for the lawyer to receive most of the settlement while the plaintiff would receive all of his estimated actual damages but less than all of his possible recovery.
Judge Barbara Moses ordered the parties to submit the missing materials and supplemental letter-brief by March 5, 2021. The order required more information before the court considered the settlement-approval request.
The detailed version
- Smith v. BRP Development Corporation · No. 1:19-cv-11794
- Barbara Moses
- Feb. 22, 2021
Background
The parties submitted a letter-motion asking the court to approve their proposed settlement under the Second Circuit’s settlement-review requirement for certain wage claims. The court received the request but noted that plaintiff’s counsel had not attached the retainer agreement with the plaintiff or documentation of counsel’s expenses, even though the court’s January 6, 2021 order required those materials.
Court’s Request for More Information
The court also requested a supplemental letter-brief addressing whether the settlement was fair and reasonable if plaintiff’s counsel would receive the largest share of the settlement. The court focused on the fact that the plaintiff would recover 100% of his estimated actual damages but considerably less than 100% of his total possible recovery if he succeeded on his claims. The court cited Fisher v. SD Prot. Inc. for the principle that fee reasonableness should account for whether the plaintiff receives a complete recovery.
Order
The court ordered the supplemental materials to be submitted by March 5, 2021. This order did not approve or reject the proposed settlement. Judge Barbara Moses therefore required additional documentation and briefing before ruling on the settlement-approval request.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.