Sloben v. SDI International Corp.
- Philip Halpern
- 7:20-cv-04717
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Sloben v. SDI International Corp., Judge Halpern denied approval of a wage-and-hour settlement because its attorney-fee allocation was unreasonable.
Christine Sloben, SDI International Corp., and Plaintiff’s counsel were affected by the denial of settlement approval and the requested revision to the attorney-fee allocation.
What happened
In Sloben v. SDI International Corp., the parties asked the court to approve a $175,000 settlement in a wage-and-hour case. The court reviewed the proposed agreement and related records, including counsel’s retainer, expenses, and billing records.
The court found the total settlement fair and reasonable, but found the proposed attorney-fee allocation unreasonable. Counsel would receive $70,000, or 40% of the settlement, plus $2,712.67 in expenses. The court said it would approve attorney fees of no more than $57,750 and denied the settlement-approval motion without prejudice to filing a revised agreement by August 5, 2021.
Judge Philip M. Halpern also said the parties should notify the court by that date if they could not or would not revise the agreement.
The detailed version
- Sloben v. SDI International Corp. · No. 7:20-cv-04717
- Philip Halpern
- July 22, 2021
Background
Christine Sloben and SDI International Corp. submitted a proposed settlement for approval in this wage-and-hour case. The submissions included a joint letter, the proposed settlement agreement, Plaintiff’s counsel’s firm resume, expense records, billing records, and the retainer agreement. The court reviewed the settlement under the standard requiring judicial review of certain wage-and-hour settlements.
Court’s Analysis
The court found that the total settlement amount of $175,000 was fair and reasonable. It separately examined the proposed attorney-fee award, as courts must do when a settlement includes attorney fees.
The proposed agreement awarded Plaintiff’s counsel $70,000, equal to 40% of the total settlement, plus $2,712.67 in expenses. The court stated that this case was not extraordinary because it involved one plaintiff and settled before the court decided whether to conditionally certify a collective action. Based on the prevailing approach in the district, the court found the proposed fee allocation unreasonable. It did not object to the listed expenses, which included filing fees, legal research, process-server fees, and photocopying.
Disposition
The court denied the motion for approval of the proposed settlement without prejudice to filing a revised settlement agreement by August 5, 2021. The court advised that it would approve an agreement with an attorney-fee award not exceeding $57,750. The parties were directed to notify the court in writing by August 5 if they were unwilling or unable to revise the agreement. Judge Philip M. Halpern signed the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.