Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 22, 2023

McDermott v. Archcare Community Services, Inc.

Judge
Andrew Krause
Docket
7:22-cv-03051
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
FlsaFee PetitionCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In McDermott v. Archcare, Judge Krause approved the parties’ Fair Labor Standards Act settlement and dismissed the action without prejudice to reopening within 45 days.

Who this affects

Mary McDermott and Archcare Community Services, Inc. d/b/a Archcare, whose settlement was approved and whose action was dismissed subject to the stated 45-day restoration period.

What happened

In McDermott v. Archcare Community Services, Inc., the parties submitted a revised settlement agreement resolving the plaintiff’s Fair Labor Standards Act claims. The revised agreement included mutual general releases, which the court found fair and reasonable.

The court also approved the proposed award of $28,187.58 in attorneys’ fees. After reviewing counsel’s billing records, the court determined that the fee was reasonable because it represented about 76 percent of the $36,960 lodestar amount.

Judge Andrew E. Krause approved the settlement and ordered that the action be dismissed without prejudice to restoring it to the court’s calendar if an application was made within 45 days. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
McDermott v. Archcare Community Services, Inc. · No. 7:22-cv-03051
Judge
Andrew Krause
Date
Dec. 22, 2023

Background

The parties submitted a revised proposed settlement agreement and attorney billing records after the court’s November 28, 2023 decision and order. The revisions changed the release provisions to provide for general mutual releases.

Settlement Approval

The court found the revised releases fair and reasonable because they were mutual in all respects. The court therefore approved the proposed settlement agreement as fair and reasonable. The opinion does not describe a decision on the underlying merits of the plaintiff’s claims; it addresses approval of the parties’ settlement.

Attorneys’ Fees

Using the lodestar method, a calculation based on the reasonable hours worked multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate, the court reviewed the proposed attorneys’ fee award of $28,187.58. Counsel had spent 92.4 hours at an hourly rate of $400, producing a lodestar figure of $36,960. The court found the proposed fee, approximately 76 percent of the lodestar, fair and reasonable.

Disposition

Because the settlement was approved and the parties intended to execute a voluntary dismissal, the court ordered that the action be dismissed without prejudice to restoring it to the court’s calendar if an application was made within 45 days of the decision and order. The court stated that an application filed after that period may be denied solely because it was late. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.