Facts
- Plaintiff appealed the denial of Social Security benefits and the Court reversed and remanded the case on July 8, 2024, establishing Plaintiff as the prevailing party [lines="12-15"].
- On September 16, 2024, Plaintiff filed for an award of $4,508.00 in legal fees under the EAJA, which the Defendant did not object to [lines="17-20"].
- The EAJA stipulates that attorney's fees must be awarded unless the Commissioner demonstrates substantial justification for the denial of benefits [lines="21-23"].
- Plaintiff's motion detailed 24.30 hours of legal work, including 20.50 hours by an attorney and 3.8 hours by paralegals conducted between January 9, 2024, and September 16, 2024 [lines="83-85"].
- The Court determined that the Government's decision to deny benefits was not substantially justified, affirming Plaintiff's status as the prevailing party [lines="82"].
Issues
- Whether the Commissioner substantially justified its position in denying Plaintiff's Social Security benefits [lines="23"].
- Whether the fee award requested by Plaintiff under the EAJA is reasonable based on the legal work performed [lines="102"].
Holdings
- The Court held that the Commissioner's position in denying benefits was not substantially justified, hence affirming Plaintiff as the prevailing party [lines="82"].
- The Court granted Plaintiff's request for $4,508.00 in attorney's fees, finding the amount reasonable for the services rendered during the case [lines="107-109"].
OPINION
Case Information
*1 Case 1:24-cv-04942-DEH-GS Document 13 Filed 09/16/24 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------------- X
: DELROY BURKETT, :
: Plaintiff, : : 24-CV-4942 (DEH) -v- : : ORDER DENNIS SHIPPING, CO, INC., et al., :
: Defendants. : : ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X
DALE E. HO, United States District Judge:
By letter filed September 13, 2024, see ECF No. 12, the Court has been advised that the parties in this action, brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. , have reached a settlement in principle. Under the FLSA, an employer who violates the requirement that overtime wages be paid must pay both the unpaid overtime compensation and an additional equal amount as liquidated damages. See id. § 216(b). In the event of a settlement and dismissal under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the settlement — including any proposed attorney’s fee award — must be scrutinized by the Court to ensure that it is fair. See Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc ., 796 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2015 ) (holding that “stipulated dismissals settling FLSA claims with prejudice require the approval of the district court or the DOL to take effect”); Wolinsky v. Scholastic, Inc ., 900 F. Supp. 2d 332, 335-36 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (identifying factors a court may consider in evaluating the fairness and reasonableness of a proposed FLSA settlement and the reasonableness of a proposed attorney’s fee award). [1] Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that, on or before October 16, 2024 , the parties
must submit the settlement agreement to the Court along with a joint letter explaining the basis for the proposed settlement and why, if parties contemplate dismissal under Rule 41, it should be approved as fair and reasonable, with reference to the factors discussed in Wolinsky . See Wolinsky , 900 F. Supp. 2d at 335-36. The letter should also address, if applicable, any incentive payments to the plaintiff and any attorney’s fee award to plaintiff’s counsel (with documentation to support the latter, if appropriate).
The parties are reminded that, now that they have reached a settlement, they have the option to consent to proceed for all purposes before the assigned Magistrate Judge (the appropriate form for which is available at http://nysd.uscourts.gov/node/754), in which case the *2 Case 1:24-cv-04942-DEH-GS Document 13 Filed 09/16/24 Page 2 of 2 assigned Magistrate Judge would decide whether to approve the settlement. If all parties consent to proceed before the assigned Magistrate Judge, they should file a fully executed version of the consent form on the docket on or before the date set forth above .
In addition, the parties are advised that the Court will not approve any settlement agreement containing any of the following provisions:
• a confidentiality provision, unless the parties can show that there are reasons, specific to
the case, sufficient to overcome the common law right of access to judicial documents. See id. at 337-41 (explaining the common law right of public access as it relates to settlement agreements in FLSA cases); see also Sanz v. Johny Utah 51 LLC , No. 14 Civ. 4380, 2015 WL 1808935, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 20, 2015);
• a release or waiver provision that releases or waives claims that have not accrued or
claims unrelated to wage-and-hour matters, unless the parties can show that there are reasons, specific to this case, justifying such a broad release. See, e.g. , Lopez v. Nights of Cabiria, LLC , 96 F. Supp. 3d 170, 181 (S.D.N.Y. 2015); or • a clause that bars a plaintiff from making negative statements about a defendant unless it
includes a carve-out for truthful statements about a plaintiff’s experience in litigating his case, or unless the parties can show that there are reasons, specific to this case, justifying a non-disparagement clause without such a carve-out. See, e.g. , Zapata v. Bedoya , No. 14 Civ. 4114, 2016 WL 4991594, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 13, 2016).
In the event that the settlement agreement does contain any of these provisions, the parties’ joint letter should also indicate whether the parties want the Court, in the alternative, to consider for approval the settlement agreement with the provision(s) stricken (in which case, the Court would, absent good cause, docket both the parties’ joint letter and the settlement agreement itself — notwithstanding any confidentiality provision). Cf. Fisher v. SD Protection Inc. , 948 F.3d 593, 606 (2d Cir. 2020) (holding that a district court may approve or reject a settlement of FLSA claims, but may not modify the agreement itself).
All conferences, along with all pending deadlines in this case, are adjourned sine die . SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 16, 2024
New York, New York _______________________________
DALE E. HO United States District Judge 2
[1] Judicial approval is not required for a settlement of FLSA claims by way of a Rule 68(a) offer of judgment. See Mei Xing Yu v. Hasaki Rest., Inc. , 944 F.3d 395, 414 (2d Cir. 2019).