| After Fair Labor Standards Act Order
By SDNY Judge Berman Firm Says It Will Drop
Its Fees
By Matthew
Russell Lee, Patreon
BBC
- Decrypt
- LightRead - Honduras
-
Source
SDNY COURTHOUSE,
April 14 – Litigation under
the Fair Labor Standards Act
makes up a surprisingly high
percentage of Federal judges'
workloads.
While without
question many restaurant and
other workers are abused and
need vindication, in too many
cases savvy specialize
lawfirms sell out their
ostensible clients' interests
in order for fees. It is
similar, in its way, to some
of the photograph copyright
cases being filed.
On
April 7 U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of
New York Judge Richard Berman
ruled after an appeal, in
great detail, citing "the very
real potential for migration
('diversion') of a plaintiff’s
potential recovery into
counsel’s fees warned against
by other courts, including
JudgeLewis A. Kaplan who
remarked in Lopez v.
Nights of Cabiria, LLC,
96 F. Supp. 3d 170, 176
(S.D.N.Y. 2015) that:
“[C]ourts must remain alert to
the risk that the filing and
settling of FLSA cases has
become a volume-based business
and that the interest of
plaintiffs’ counsel in
counsel’s own compensation
will adversely affect the
extent of the relief counsel
will procure for the clients.”
Similarly, Judge
William H. Pauley III has
cautioned in Velasquez v.
SAFI-G, Inc., 137 F.
Supp. 3d 582, 585 (S.D.N.Y.
2015) that in a wage case
settlement “the Court’s
primary function is to make
sure that some of the
plaintiff’s recovery has not
been unreasonably diverted to
pay his attorney a greater fee
than that to which he is
entitled."
Judge
Berman continued, "Plaintiff’s
counsel failed to certify a
class or procure any class
relief, notwithstanding their
pursuit of a collective and
class action from “beginning
to end.” And, Plaintiff’s
proposed award of $2,000
ignores the prospect of
Plaintiff’s recovery under the
NYLL, even though the NYLL
claims are clearly set forth
in the Complaint."
On April 13, this
response: "We are counsel to
Plaintiff and write in
response to the Court’s
Decision and Order dated April
7, 2020 (ECF Dkt. 107) (the
“Decision”), to inform the
Court on how Plaintiff intends
to proceed, in light of the
Decision. Although we still
believe the Settlement
Agreement, including the fee
split, is fair and reasonable,
in the interests of resolving
this matter and avoiding the
incursion of any additional
legal fees, Plaintiff agrees
to enter into a revised
settlement based upon the
allocation of the settlement
amount set forth in the
Decision. We have informed
Defendants’ counsel
accordingly, however,
Defendants’ counsel has
advised that he plans to
withdraw as counsel.
Respectfully, /s/ Anne Seelig
Anne Seelig, Esq."
Judge
Berman then ordered, "The
parties are requested to
submit the proposed settlement
for the Court's review by
April 28, 2020 (noon)." Watch
this site.
The case is
Fisher v. SD Protection Inc.,
et al., 19-cv-2229 (Berman).
***
Your
support means a lot. As little as $5 a month
helps keep us going and grants you access to
exclusive bonus material on our Patreon
page. Click
here to become a patron.
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
SDNY Press Room 480, front cubicle
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA
Mail: Box 20047, Dag
Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017
Reporter's mobile (and weekends):
718-716-3540
Other, earlier Inner City Press are
listed here,
and some are available in the ProQuest
service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright 2006-2020 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com for
|
,
