Rosado v. Castillo
- Lewis Liman
- 1:20-cv-03913
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Rosado v. Castillo, Judge Liman approved a $25,000 attorney-fee award and allowed a revised settlement agreement to be submitted for approval.
The parties and their counsel were affected: the court approved a $25,000 attorney-fee award and allowed the parties to submit a revised settlement agreement.
What happened
Rosado v. Castillo concerned the court’s review of an attorney-fee award and a proposed settlement agreement. The opinion does not describe the underlying dispute or claims.
The court considered the factors identified in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. and Fisher v. SD Protection Inc., along with counsel’s hours, the result achieved, risks taken, counsel’s skill, and the contingency-fee agreement.
Judge Lewis J. Liman approved an attorney-fee award of $25,000. He also gave the parties permission to submit a revised settlement agreement, which the court said it would approve under Cheeks based on the April 23, 2021 hearing.
The detailed version
- Rosado v. Castillo · No. 1:20-cv-03913
- Lewis Liman
- Apr. 26, 2021
What the order addressed
The order addressed an attorney-fee award and the parties’ settlement agreement. The opinion excerpt does not identify the underlying claims or describe the parties’ dispute.
Court’s analysis
The court considered the factors discussed in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. and Fisher v. SD Protection Inc. It also considered the number of hours counsel spent on the matter, the result achieved, the risks taken, counsel’s skill, and the contingency-fee agreement. A contingency-fee agreement is an arrangement under which counsel’s payment depends on the outcome or recovery in the matter.
Ruling
The court approved an attorney-fee award of $25,000. It also gave the parties permission to submit a revised settlement agreement. The court stated that it would approve that revised agreement under Cheeks based on the hearing held on April 23, 2021. The excerpt does not state that the revised agreement had already been submitted or approved.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.