Dejesus v. 2078 Arthur LLC
- Barbara Moses
- 1:20-cv-02030
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Dejesus v. 2078 Arthur LLC, Judge Moses ordered plaintiff’s counsel to publicly file the referenced retainer agreement by June 22, 2021.
Miguel Dejesus, 2078 Arthur LLC and the other defendants, and plaintiff’s counsel.
What happened
In Dejesus v. 2078 Arthur LLC, the parties asked the court to approve their proposed settlement agreement. They referred to a retainer agreement stating how plaintiff’s counsel would be paid, but they did not attach that agreement.
The opinion describes the referenced fee arrangement, including a possible contingency fee or statutory attorney-fee payment. The court said it requires a copy of the agreement when needed to support an attorney-fee award.
Judge Barbara Moses ordered plaintiff’s counsel to file the retainer agreement on the public docket no later than June 22, 2021. The opinion does not state whether the court approved or denied the proposed settlement.
The detailed version
- Dejesus v. 2078 Arthur LLC · No. 1:20-cv-02030
- Barbara Moses
- June 15, 2021
Background
The parties filed a letter-motion asking the court to approve their proposed settlement agreement under the procedure described in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. The parties later consented to have the assigned magistrate judge conduct all further proceedings.
The letter-motion referred to a retainer agreement between Miguel Dejesus and his counsel. According to the letter-motion, the agreement apparently provided that counsel would receive the greater of either a 40% contingency fee from the gross recovery, after deducting costs and expenses, or statutory attorney’s fees. The retainer agreement itself was not attached to the motion.
Court’s action
Judge Barbara Moses stated that she generally requires the parties to submit a copy of a plaintiff’s contingency-fee agreement when necessary to support an attorney-fee award. She ordered plaintiff’s counsel to file the referenced retainer agreement on the public docket no later than June 22, 2021.
The opinion does not state that the court approved or denied the proposed settlement agreement. It addresses only the filing of the retainer agreement.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.