Ponce v. Safi-G, Inc.
- Sarah Cave
- 1:22-cv-04341
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Ponce v. Safi-G, Judge Cave required more fee documentation before reviewing the parties’ proposed wage-claim settlement.
The order affects the plaintiffs, the defendants, the plaintiffs’ counsel, and the proposed settlement class because the court required additional information before reviewing the settlement and attorneys’ fee provision.
What happened
In Ponce v. Safi-G, Inc., the plaintiffs and defendants jointly asked the court to approve a proposed settlement of claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage law. The agreement included a payment of attorneys’ fees.
The court said the parties had not provided enough information for an independent review, especially information supporting the proposed attorneys’ fee award. The missing materials included the lawyers’ retainer agreement, billing records, and expense documentation.
Judge Sarah L. Cave ordered the plaintiffs’ lawyers to submit the retainer agreement, records of their time and expenses, and invoices for service costs by December 22, 2023. The order did not state that the court approved or denied the settlement.
The detailed version
- Ponce v. Safi-G, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-04341
- Sarah Cave
- Dec. 19, 2023
Background
Maria Paz Ponce, Wilson Lozano Rey, and Sergio Alonso Cabrera Montoya brought the action individually and on behalf of others similarly situated against Safi-G, Inc., doing business as Caffe Buon Gusto, and Nasser Ghorchian. The court received the parties’ joint request for approval of a proposed settlement agreement concerning claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The parties also submitted additional materials in response to an earlier court order.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that when a proposed settlement of Fair Labor Standards Act claims includes attorneys’ fees, the court must assess whether the fee award is reasonable. To make that assessment, the lawyers must provide evidence supporting the requested fees, including contemporaneous billing records showing the date, hours worked, and nature of the work performed by each attorney.
The agreement contemplated an allocation of attorneys’ fees to the plaintiffs’ counsel, but the parties had not submitted the retainer agreement or billing records. The court therefore concluded that it could not complete its review of the proposed settlement, particularly the attorneys’ fee provision.
Order and Effect
Judge Sarah L. Cave ordered the plaintiffs’ counsel to submit the retainer agreement, contemporaneous time and expense records, and invoices for service costs by December 22, 2023. The opinion does not state that the settlement was approved or denied; it directs counsel to provide additional information so the court can continue its review.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.