Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 17, 2024

Alawamri v. S.V.B. Corp.

Judge
Lewis Liman
Docket
1:22-cv-08966
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureFee Petition
In one sentence

In Alawamri v. S.V.B. Corp., Judge Liman ordered the parties to explain why their proposed settlement should be approved and document any requested attorney fees.

Who this affects

The parties to the proposed settlement and, if applicable, the plaintiff’s counsel seeking an attorney-fee award.

What happened

In Alawamri v. S.V.B. Corp., the court directed the parties to submit a joint letter by April 22, 2024, explaining why their proposed settlement was fair and reasonable.

The letter must discuss any confidentiality terms, promises not to criticize anyone, releases, and—if applicable—the requested attorney-fee award. The parties must support any fee request with appropriate records, including time records showing each attorney’s work.

Judge Lewis J. Liman warned that insufficient documentation could lead the court to reject the proposed fee award. This order directed further submissions; it did not itself approve or reject the settlement.

The detailed version

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

Case
Alawamri v. S.V.B. Corp. · No. 1:22-cv-08966
Judge
Lewis Liman
Date
Apr. 17, 2024

Background

The court had previously directed the parties to provide information about a proposed settlement. In this order, the court required the parties to submit a joint letter by April 22, 2024, explaining the basis for the settlement and why the court should find it fair and reasonable. The court instructed them to address the fairness factors discussed in cited Second Circuit and Southern District of New York decisions.

Required Settlement Information

The joint letter must address any confidentiality provisions, non-disparagement provisions, or releases in the proposed settlement agreement. If the settlement includes an attorney-fee award for the plaintiff’s counsel, the letter must also address that award and provide supporting documentation when appropriate.

The court stated that merely identifying the requested fee as a percentage of the total settlement amount was insufficient. Instead, the fee request must be supported by adequate documentation, which normally includes contemporaneous time records identifying, for each attorney, the date, hours worked, and nature of the work. The court warned that insufficient documentation could result in rejection of the proposed fee award.

Disposition

The court ordered the parties to submit the joint letter and supporting information. The order did not itself approve or reject the proposed settlement or enter a ruling on any fee award.

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.