Morales Campos v. Up Thai Corp.
- Figueredo
- 1:19-cv-04730
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Morales Campos v. Up Thai Corp., Judge Figueredo sought more settlement and fee information before deciding whether to approve the agreement.
The plaintiffs, defendants, and plaintiffs’ counsel in the proposed Fair Labor Standards Act settlement were required to provide additional information before the court would decide whether to approve the agreement.
What happened
Morales Campos v. Up Thai Corp. is a wage-and-hour case brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The parties asked the court to approve their proposed settlement involving multiple plaintiffs.
The court said it needed more information before deciding whether the settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate. It required the parties to provide each plaintiff’s estimated damages, settlement recovery, and the calculations supporting those amounts. It also questioned the requested $32,980 in attorney fees because the lodestar amount was $8,720, producing an effective hourly rate above $900 and a 3.8 multiplier.
Judge Valerie Figueredo ordered the parties to submit a joint letter addressing these questions by October 25, 2023. The order did not approve or reject the proposed settlement.
The detailed version
- Morales Campos v. Up Thai Corp. · No. 1:19-cv-04730
- Figueredo
- Oct. 4, 2023
Background
The plaintiffs brought this wage-and-hour case under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The parties consented to Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo’s authority to review their proposed settlement. They submitted a joint letter-motion and proposed settlement agreement seeking court approval under the required review process for certain Fair Labor Standards Act settlements.
Court’s concerns
The court reviewed the proposed settlement and accompanying materials but said it needed more information before determining whether the agreement was fair, reasonable, and adequate.
First, because the agreement covered multiple plaintiffs, the parties had not provided each plaintiff’s estimated damages or the amount that plaintiff would receive under the settlement. The court directed the parties to identify each plaintiff’s total recovery and explain the calculations and factual bases for those amounts.
Second, plaintiffs’ counsel requested $32,980 in attorney fees, while the lodestar—the number of hours worked multiplied by reasonable hourly rates—was $8,720. The court noted that the request represented an effective hourly rate of more than $900 and a 3.8 multiplier. It directed the parties to explain why the proposed fee was reasonable, citing decisions that questioned fees exceeding three times the lodestar in relatively uncomplicated Fair Labor Standards Act cases.
Order
Judge Valerie Figueredo directed the parties to submit a joint letter answering the court’s questions by October 25, 2023. The order did not approve or reject the proposed settlement.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.