Rodriguez v. New Generation Hardware Store Corp.
- Lewis Liman
- 1:22-cv-04422
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Rodriguez v. Clearbrook Management, Magistrate Judge Cave required billing records before reviewing the proposed settlement’s attorney-fee request.
Joseph Rodriguez, his counsel, and Clearbrook Management Inc.; the order specifically required Rodriguez’s counsel to provide additional billing and hourly-rate information.
What happened
Joseph Rodriguez v. Clearbrook Management Inc. involved a request for court approval of a settlement of Rodriguez’s wage claims. The proposed agreement would pay Rodriguez’s counsel $8,651, described as a one-third contingency fee plus $477 in costs.
The court said it could not assess whether the requested attorney fees were reasonable because Rodriguez had not provided counsel’s declaration, billing records, or comparable information about hourly rates and time spent. The court therefore required counsel to file contemporaneous billing records and hourly-rate information by December 12, 2022, before the court could complete its review.
Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave issued the order. The order did not approve or reject the settlement; it required additional information about fees and costs.
The detailed version
- Rodriguez v. New Generation Hardware Store Corp. · No. 1:22-cv-04422
- Lewis Liman
- Dec. 7, 2022
Background
The parties asked the court to approve their settlement agreement. The proposed agreement provided that Rodriguez’s counsel would receive $8,651.00: a stated one-third contingency fee of $8,174 and $477.00 in costs.
Because the settlement involved claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the court explained that it had to evaluate whether the attorney-fee award was reasonable. The court said that courts in the Second Circuit use the lodestar method as a cross-check even when the fee is based on a contingency agreement. That method compares the requested fee with a reasonable hourly rate multiplied by the reasonable number of hours worked. Courts generally require contemporaneous billing records showing each attorney’s date, hours, and work performed.
Court’s Action
Rodriguez submitted the retainer agreement but did not submit a declaration from counsel, billing records, or similar documentation. Without those materials, the court said it could not evaluate the attorneys’ hourly rates or the time spent on the case and therefore could not complete its review of the settlement agreement.
The court ordered Rodriguez’s counsel to file, by December 12, 2022, contemporaneous billing records supporting the requested fees and costs, along with hourly-rate information for all attorneys and support staff who worked on the case. The order did not state that the settlement was approved or rejected.
Disposition
The court required additional fee documentation before it could recommend approval of the settlement. This was a procedural order concerning review of the proposed settlement and attorney fees, not a decision on the underlying wage claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.