Clermont v. Alboro National NJ, LLC
- Andrew Carter
- 1:20-cv-11121
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Clermont v. Alboro National, Judge Carter declined to approve the settlement and ordered billing records supporting the requested attorney’s fee.
Frandy Clermont and the defendants, Alboro National LLC and Abe Schwebel, were affected because the court did not approve the settlement in its current form and required billing records supporting the requested attorney’s fee.
What happened
In Frandy Clermont v. Alboro National LLC and Abe Schwebel, Clermont asked the court to approve a settlement and provided a letter explaining why it was fair. The settlement involved claims under the federal wage law known as the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The court declined to approve the settlement in its current form because Clermont did not provide documentation supporting the requested attorney’s fee. The court said it needed billing records to independently assess whether the fee was reasonable.
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. ordered Clermont to submit records showing each attorney’s date, hours, and work performed by December 31, 2021.
The detailed version
- Clermont v. Alboro National NJ, LLC · No. 1:20-cv-11121
- Andrew Carter
- Dec. 8, 2021
Background
The court received Frandy Clermont’s motion asking for approval of a settlement and an accompanying fairness letter. The opinion states that the settlement involved claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage-and-hours law. The court reviewed the settlement agreement and fairness letter.
Issue
The court considered whether it could approve the settlement while also assessing the reasonableness of the requested attorney’s fee. The court explained that even when a proposed fee is no more than one-third of the settlement amount, the court must independently determine whether the fee is reasonable. That determination requires contemporaneous billing records—records created at the time of the work—that identify, for each attorney, the date, hours worked, and nature of the work.
Ruling
The court declined to approve the settlement in its current form because Clermont had not provided documentation supporting the requested fee. The court ordered Clermont to submit billing records supporting the fee request by December 31, 2021. The opinion does not state that the settlement was finally rejected or approved after that submission.
Disposition
The motion for settlement approval was not approved in its current form, and the court ordered the additional billing-record submission.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.