Puma v. Dream Team Partners, LLC
- Sarah Cave
- 1:19-cv-09824
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Puma v. Dream Team Partners, Judge Cave required counsel to submit documents needed to review the proposed wage settlement.
The order affected German Puma, the other proposed settlement participants, the defendants Dream Team Partners LLC and Sally Chironis, and plaintiffs’ counsel by requiring counsel to provide documents for the court’s settlement review.
What happened
Puma v. Dream Team Partners is a wage-and-hour case under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law governing pay and work hours. The parties asked the court to review their proposed settlement, which included attorney fees based on a one-third contingency agreement.
The parties did not provide the attorney-retainer agreement or billing records. Without those documents, the court said it could not determine whether the proposed attorney-fee award was reasonable or complete its review of the settlement.
Judge Cave ordered the plaintiffs’ counsel to submit the retainer agreement or billing records by August 6, 2021. The order did not state that the settlement was approved or rejected.
The detailed version
- Puma v. Dream Team Partners, LLC · No. 1:19-cv-09824
- Sarah Cave
- July 30, 2021
Background
German Puma sued Dream Team Partners LLC and Sally Chironis on behalf of himself and others similarly situated in a wage-and-hour case under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The parties consented to Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave’s authority to review their proposed settlement. The proposed settlement included an attorney-fee award based on Puma’s agreement to a one-third contingency retainer arrangement with counsel.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that when a proposed FLSA settlement includes attorney fees, the court must evaluate whether the fee award is reasonable. To make that evaluation, counsel must provide evidence supporting the award, including contemporaneous billing records showing each attorney’s dates, hours, and work performed. The parties’ joint letter did not include the retainer agreement or billing records requested in the court’s July 6, 2021 order.
Ruling
Because the missing documents prevented the court from completing its review of the proposed settlement, Judge Sarah L. Cave ordered plaintiffs’ counsel to submit the retainer agreement or billing records by August 6, 2021. The opinion does not say that the court approved or rejected the settlement.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.