Brown v. DCD Construction LLC
- Lewis Liman
- 1:19-cv-04892
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Brown v. DCD Construction, Judge Liman required more information before reviewing a proposed labor-law settlement and dismissed pending motions as moot.
The plaintiffs, defendants, and plaintiffs’ counsel were required to provide information for court review of the proposed settlement and to attend the scheduled hearing. Any pending motions were dismissed as moot, and other conferences and deadlines were canceled.
What happened
In Brown v. DCD Construction LLC, the parties told the court they had reached a settlement in principle in a lawsuit under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The court had to review the proposed settlement, including any proposed attorney’s fee award, for fairness.
Judge Liman ordered the parties to submit a joint letter by November 9, 2022, explaining why the settlement should be approved as fair and reasonable. The letter must address confidentiality, non-disparagement terms, releases, and any attorney’s fees, supported by appropriate documentation.
The court scheduled a telephone hearing for November 16, 2022, and directed the plaintiff to attend, with an interpreter if necessary. Judge Liman dismissed any pending motions as moot and canceled all other conferences and deadlines; the opinion did not approve the settlement.
The detailed version
- Brown v. DCD Construction LLC · No. 1:19-cv-04892
- Lewis Liman
- Oct. 25, 2022
Background
The parties reached a settlement in principle in this Fair Labor Standards Act case. The court explained that, under current Second Circuit law, it must review any settlement—including any proposed award of attorney’s fees—to determine whether the settlement is fair.
Required Settlement Submission
The court ordered the parties to file a joint letter by November 9, 2022. The letter must explain the basis for the proposed settlement and why the court should approve it as fair and reasonable, using the factors identified in Wolinsky v. Scholastic, Inc. The parties must also address any confidentiality provisions, non-disparagement provisions, or releases.
If the settlement includes an attorney’s fee award, the parties must address that award and provide supporting documentation when appropriate. The court stated that merely identifying the proportion of the requested fee to the total settlement amount is insufficient. The fee analysis should ordinarily include contemporaneous time records showing, for each attorney, the date, hours worked, and nature of the work. Insufficient documentation could lead the court to reject the proposed fee award.
Hearing and Disposition
The court directed the parties to appear by telephone for a settlement-approval hearing on November 16, 2022, at 3:30 p.m. The plaintiff must appear and may use an interpreter if necessary. The court dismissed any pending motions as moot and canceled all other conferences and deadlines.
Judge Lewis J. Liman did not approve the settlement in this order; instead, he required additional information and scheduled a hearing. This was a procedural order concerning review of a proposed settlement, not a decision on the underlying Fair Labor Standards Act claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.