Harmon et al v. Federal Interiors Group, LLC et al

Filing 42

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Holding in Abeyance for fourteen days 41 Joint Motion for Judicial Approval of Settlement filed by Jonathan Harmon. Signed by Judge James K. Bredar on 5/31/2017. (bas, Deputy Clerk)

Case 1:16-cv-00390-JKB Document 42 Filed 05/31/17 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
*
JONATHAN HARMON et al.,

*

Plaintiffs

*

v.

*

FEDERAL INTERIORS GROUP, LLC,
et al.

CIVIL NO. JKB-16-0390

*
*

Defendants
*
*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion for Judicial Approval of Settlement.
(ECF No. 41.) The Court requires supplementation and clarification before it can approve the
settlement. The primary problem with the motion is that it fails to provide the detail regarding
the requested attorney’s fees, as the parties were directed in the Court’s Memorandum to
Counsel, September 13, 2016, to provide.

(ECF No. 22.)

“The Court needs to see

documentation of the hours expended, broken down for each task, and supporting information as
to the reasonableness of the hourly rate charged.” Id. (citing Pearson v. Prof’l 50 States Prot.,
LLC, Civ. No. JKB-09-3232, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90714, at *3-4 (D. Md. June 28, 2012)).
The motion, as submitted by the parties, only gives a total number of hours, broken down only as
to whether they were billed by an attorney or by a paralegal, and the hourly rate. That is
insufficient.

The parties shall resubmit the motion giving heed to the directives of the

September 13, 2016, Memorandum to Counsel.
One other aspect that the Court has noticed is that the motion refers to liquidated
damages (Mot. Supp. Mem. 5, 6), but the settlement does not include any liquidated damages, as

Case 1:16-cv-00390-JKB Document 42 Filed 05/31/17 Page 2 of 2

might be considered typical in a Fair Labor Standards Act case. The Court asks the parties to
clarify that the omission of liquidated damages from the settlement was an intentional act of the
Plaintiffs.
Otherwise, the settlement appears to be fair. Accordingly, the Court will hold the motion
in abeyance for fourteen days pending receipt of the parties’ additional submissions.
SO ORDERED.
DATED this 31st day of May, 2017.

BY THE COURT:

_____________/s/_____________________
James K. Bredar
United States District Judge

2