GREATHOUSE v. JHS SECURITY INC (2018)

SUMMARY ORDER

Darnell Greathouse appeals from the September 20, 2017 opinion and order, and the September 25, 2018 judgment, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Engelmayer, J.) awarding him $28,768.05 in attorneys’ fees and $569.62 in costs for his claims of illegal retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., and New York Labor Law (“NYLL”), N.Y. Lab. Law § 190 et seq. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and specification of issues for review.

On appeal, Greathouse argues that the district court committed legal error in declining to award fees on a flat-fee basis. A district court is granted “considerable discretion in determining what constitutes reasonable attorney's fees in a given case, mindful of the court's superior understanding of the litigation and the desirability of avoiding frequent appellate review of what essentially are factual matters. A fee award will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion.” Matusick v. Erie Cty. Water Auth., 757 F.3d 31, 64 (2d Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

The district court did not abuse its direction in awarding fees based on the lodestar, rather than on a flat-fee basis. The lodestar is the “presumptively reasonable fee.” Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens Neighborhood Ass'n v. Cty. of Albany and Albany Cty. Bd. of Elections, 522 F.3d 182, 183 (2d Cir. 2008). We need not address the issue of whether awarding fees on a flat-fee basis is ever appropriate. It suffices to say that it was not an abuse of discretion to decline to do so here.

We have considered the remainder of Greathouse's arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the order of the district court hereby is AFFIRMED.