Opinion
19-CV-11895 (JMF)
11-23-2022
GUANGFU CHEN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MATSU FUSION RESTAURANT INC., et al., Defendants.
ORDER
JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge
On November 15, 2022, the parties in this case, brought in part pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., reached a settlement. See ECF No. 226. The Court approved the settlement as fair and reasonable on the record but reserved judgment on Plaintiffs' counsel's request for fees and costs pending a further submission. See id. Upon review of that submission, see ECF No. 227 (“Fee Submission”), the Court approves the proposed fees and costs as reasonable. That conclusion is justified by, among other things, the agreement between counsel and Plaintiffs, see, e.g., Picerni v. Bilingual Seit & Preschool Inc., 925 F.Supp.2d 368, 377 n.3 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (“Unless there is a basis to presume conflict and antagonism between the plaintiff and his attorney - i.e., that the plaintiff's attorney is receiving a larger fee at the expense of his client's wage claim . . . then the basis upon which the attorney's fee is determined should be of no interest to the court, just as it is of no interest in most other kinds of private litigation.”); the fact that fee awards of a similar size are typically approved in this Circuit, see, e.g., Guzman v. Joesons Auto Parts, No. 11-CV-4543 (ETB), 2013 WL 2898154, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. June 13, 2013) (collecting cases); and by the lodestar cross check, see Fee Submission 31-32. In so holding, however, the Court makes no finding about the reasonableness of counsel's hourly rates (or the hours spent on this litigation).
SO ORDERED.