Pearson et al v. Professional 50 States et al

Filing 86

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER directing parties to file a joint supplemental submission. Signed by Judge James K. Bredar on 6/28/12. (bmhs, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
*
JIMMIE PEARSON et al.,

*

Plaintiffs

*

v.

*

PROF’L 50 STATES PROT., LLC, et al.
Defendants
*
*

CIVIL NO. JKB-09-3232

*
*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
The Court has reviewed the parties’ joint motion for approval of the settlement agreement
(ECF No. 85) and has found it wanting. In the Court’s earlier, supplemental order of April 4,
2012 (ECF No. 81), the parties were “directed to submit a detailed, joint request for approval,
guided by the Lane [v. Ko-Me, LLC, Civ. No. DKC-10-2261, 2011 WL 3880427 (D. Md.
Aug. 31, 2011)] opinion, along with a proposed order.” Because the parties disputed the amount
of wages owed, they, in keeping with the Lane opinion, were required to provide each party’s
estimate of the number of hours worked and the applicable wage. Id. at *2 (citing Dees v.
Hydradry, Inc., 706 F. Supp. 2d 1227, 1241-42 (M.D. Fla. 2010)). The Court notes an earlier
letter order of Magistrate Judge Gauvey, who assisted the parties with mediation of this case,
requiring the submission to her by Plaintiffs’ counsel of “an itemization that is the basis for your
. . . demand for each of the plaintiffs listed.” (ECF Nos. 77, 82.) This is the type of itemization
now needed for the Court to consider the reasonableness and fairness of the proposed settlement,
particularly since the parties suggest the settlement represents a discounted amount to the
Plaintiffs.

Additionally, the parties have provided no factual basis for the Court to assess the
reasonableness of the portion of the settlement amount that is intended to represent the attorneys’
fees to be paid by Defendants to Plaintiffs. The Lane opinion also speaks to the required
documentation the parties should submit to support such a request: “declarations establishing the
hours expended, broken down for each task, and demonstrating that the hourly rate was
reasonable.” Lane, 2011 WL 3880427, at *3. This information should be consistent with that
prescribed by the Fourth Circuit in Robinson v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 560 F.3d 235, 243 (4th
Cir. 2009). If the settlement amount to Plaintiffs for wages owed represents a discounted
amount, then the parties should explain whether the requested attorneys’ fees are similarly
discounted, and if not, why. Finally, no proposed order was submitted with the motion.
The parties’ joint supplemental submission, including a proposed order, should be filed
on or before July 9, 2012. Should the parties fail to submit the required information by that date,
the previous settlement order (ECF No. 80) will be vacated and this matter will be set in for trial.
SO ORDERED.
DATED this 28th day of June, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

/s/
James K. Bredar
United States District Judge

2