Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 29, 2022

Cruz Morel v. Green Castle A Mgmt Corp.

Judge
Stewart Aaron
Docket
1:19-cv-11307
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
FlsaFee PetitionCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Cruz Morel v. Green Castle A, Judge Aaron approved a Fair Labor Standards Act settlement, dismissed the action with prejudice, and retained jurisdiction to enforce it.

Who this affects

The settlement affected the plaintiffs, including the opt-in plaintiffs, and the defendants. The approved attorneys’ fees and costs affected plaintiffs’ counsel. The dismissal ended the action, while the court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement.

What happened

In Cruz Morel v. Green Castle A Mgmt Corp., the parties reached a settlement after a settlement conference. The court reviewed the agreement and additional signatures showing that the opt-in plaintiffs consented, and found the settlement fair and reasonable in light of the claims, litigation risks, and further expenses.

The court also approved $72,954.79 in attorneys’ fees and costs, which represented one-third of the net settlement amount. It stated that it was not deciding whether the lawyers’ hourly rates were reasonable.

Judge Stewart D. Aaron approved the settlement, dismissed the action with prejudice and without costs except as provided in the settlement agreement, retained jurisdiction to enforce the agreement, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Cruz Morel v. Green Castle A Mgmt Corp. · No. 1:19-cv-11307
Judge
Stewart Aaron
Date
Mar. 29, 2022

Background

The case included claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The parties appeared before Judge Aaron for a settlement conference on December 20, 2021, and reached a settlement in principle. On the parties’ consent, the case was referred to Judge Aaron to decide the matter under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

The court required the parties to submit the settlement agreement and explain why the agreement, including attorneys’ fees and costs, was fair, reasonable, and adequate. After reviewing the initial submissions, the court ordered the plaintiffs to provide additional documentation showing that the opt-in plaintiffs had consented to the settlement. The parties then submitted an agreement with additional signatures and related papers.

Settlement and Attorneys’ Fees

The court found the proposed settlement fair and reasonable, considering the nature and scope of the plaintiffs’ claims and the risks and expenses of further litigation. The plaintiffs requested $72,954.79 in attorneys’ fees and costs, equal to one-third of the net settlement amount. The submitted materials showed a lodestar—the lawyers’ billed time multiplied by their claimed hourly rates—of $31,880.

The court stated that courts in the circuit typically approve attorneys’ fees equal to one-third of the total recovery and regularly approve lodestar multipliers between two and six times the lodestar. It therefore found the requested fees fair and reasonable. The court expressly made no finding about whether counsel’s hourly rates were reasonable.

Ruling

Judge Stewart D. Aaron approved the settlement. The action was dismissed with prejudice and without costs except as provided in the settlement agreement. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.