Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 28, 2023

Acevedo v. E&M Logistics Staffing Inc.

Judge
Jesse Furman
Docket
1:23-cv-04460
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
FlsaFee PetitionCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Acevedo v. E&M Logistics, Judge Furman required counsel’s time records before deciding whether to approve the proposed FLSA settlement.

Who this affects

The plaintiff’s counsel must provide time records supporting the attorney’s-fee award in the proposed settlement; the settlement remained undecided.

What happened

The case, Acevedo v. E&M Logistics Staffing Inc., includes a claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act and a proposed settlement submitted jointly by the parties.

The proposed settlement included payment of the plaintiff’s lawyer’s fees. Before approving or rejecting the settlement, the court required plaintiff’s lawyer to provide records showing each lawyer’s dates, hours, and work performed.

Judge Jesse M. Furman ordered plaintiff’s counsel to submit those records for review by December 1, 2023. The order did not approve or reject the proposed settlement.

The detailed version

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

Case
Acevedo v. E&M Logistics Staffing Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-04460
Judge
Jesse Furman
Date
Nov. 28, 2023

Background

The case includes a claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law governing issues such as minimum wages and overtime. On November 27, 2023, the parties jointly asked the court to approve their proposed settlement and submitted the settlement agreement. The agreement included payment of the plaintiff’s attorney’s fees.

Court’s Analysis

The court stated that applications for attorney’s fees are normally not allowed unless they include contemporaneous time records. Those records must identify, for each attorney, the date of the work, the hours spent, and the nature of the work.

Order

Before approving or rejecting the proposed settlement, the court required plaintiff’s counsel to submit the contemporaneous time records for review. The court set a deadline of December 1, 2023. The order did not approve or reject the proposed settlement.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.