Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

FEARS v. WILHELMINA MODEL AGENCY

June 6, 2005.

CAROLYN FEARS, DONNA GIBBS, CAROL McILVAINE (a.k.a. CAROL ALSTON), SHARON SIMON, and TIFFANY CONNOR, on their own behalf and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs,
v.
WILHELMINA MODEL AGENCY, INC., FORD MODELS, INC., (f.k.a. FORD MODEL AGENCY), GERARD W. FORD, ELITE MODEL MANAGEMENT, INC., CLICK MODEL MANAGEMENT, INC., NEXT MANAGEMENT CORP., MFME MODEL MANAGEMENT CO., LTD. (a.k.a. COMPANY MANAGEMENT), BOSS MODELS, INC., ZOLI MANAGEMENT, INC., QUE MODEL MANAGEMENT, DNA MODEL MANAGEMENT, LLC, IMAGES MANAGEMENT, IMG MODELS, INC., and MODEL MANAGEMENT CORPORATION (f.k.a. INTERNATIONAL MODEL MANAGERS ASSOCIATION, INC.), Defendants.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: HAROLD BAER, JR., District Judge

OPINION & ORDER

On May 19, 2005, Plaintiffs, by and through their counsel of record, moved this Court, pursuant to Rule 6.3 of the Local Civil Rules of the S.D.N.Y ("Rule 6.3"), to reconsider its May 5, 2005 Order and Opinion. See Fears v. Wilhelmina Model Agency, Inc., No. 02 Civ. 4911, 2005 WL 1041134 (S.D.N.Y. May 5, 2005) ("Settlement Approval Order"). For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs' motion is GRANTED-in-part and DENIED-in-part.

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

  Rule 6.3 requires the party seeking reconsideration to "set ? forth concisely the matters or controlling decisions which counsel believes the court has overlooked" and "that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court." Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995) (citing to Rule 6.3); see Tamayo v. City of New York, No. 02 Civ. 8030, 2004 WL 725836, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2004) (Baer, J.). The standard for granting a motion for reconsideration is strict, id., however, a court may grant a motion for reconsideration "to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice." Doe v. New York City Dep't of Soc. Servs., 709 F.2d 782, 789 (2d Cir. 1983) (quotation marks and citation omitted); see also U.S. Titan, Inc. v. Guangzhou Zhen Hua Shipping Co., Ltd., 182 F.R.D. 97, 100 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) ("Local Civil Rule 6.3 provides the Court with an opportunity to correct manifest errors of law or fact, hear newly discovered evidence, consider a change in the applicable law or prevent manifest injustice.").

  II. TIMELINESS

  Motions for reconsideration "shall be served within ten (10) days after the docketing of the court's determination of the original motion" and "[n]o affidavits shall be filed by any party unless directed by the court." Rule 6.3. If the motion for reconsideration is filed "after the tenday window permitted under Local Rule 6.3 . . . Plaintiffs' motion could be denied on this basis alone." Am. Hotel Intern. Group Inc. v. OneBeacon Ins. Co., No. 01 Civ. 654, 2005 WL 1176122, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. May 18, 2005); see also, Gibson v. Wise, 331 F. Supp. 2d 168, 169 (E.D.N.Y. 2004) (denying motion for reconsideration as untimely); Siemans Westinghouse Power Corp. v. Dick Corp., 219 F.R.D. 552, 554 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (same); Snall v. City of New York, No. 97 Civ. 5204, 1999 WL 1129054, at *3-4 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 1999) (same).

  Here, Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration was both untimely filed and accompanied by four volumes of affidavits and exhibits estimated at over one thousand pages. The Settlement Approval Order was signed, docketed, and entered on May 5, 2005. Excluding weekends and holidays, that provided Plaintiffs' until May 19, 2005 to move for reconsideration. However, Plaintiffs' counsel waited until May 20, 2005 to move for reconsideration. Further, while the inclusion of affidavits is not fatal to Plaintiffs' motion, they will not be considered in support of the motion.

  III. DISCUSSION

  Overlooking the motion's procedural deficiencies in the interest of deciding matters on their merits, as directed by the Federal Rules, Plaintiffs raised a host of issues in their motion, several of which are arguably meritorious and, at least, worthy of comment, including: (A) the damage award and prejudgment interest; (B) award of attorneys' fees; (C) application of the cy pres doctrine; and, (D) incentive awards. The balance have been reviewed and found not deserving of further comment. A. Treble Damages and Prejudgment Interest

  Plaintiffs' primary contention is that the Court's decision to award single, instead of treble, damages and failure to award prejudgment interest was a fundamental error. However, Plaintiffs' contentions are belied by the terms of the Settlement Agreement and law in the Second Circuit.

  In December 2004, the parties to the instant action agreed to, and submitted, the proposed settlement agreement for Court approval pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A settlement agreement is akin to any other contract. Bank of N.Y. v. Amoco Oil Co., 35 F.3d 643, 661 (2d Cir. 1994). Consequently, "because class settlements are contracts, courts do not generally have the authority to modify them." Dashingo v. Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 312 F. Supp. 2d 440, 446 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). The Second Circuit has advised that because the "compass of a settlement agreement must be found within its four corners," Scottish Air Int'l, Inc. v. British Caledonian Group, PLC, 81 F.3d 1224, 1230 (2d Cir. 1996), a district court "should approve or disapprove a proposed agreement as it is placed before him and should not take it upon himself to modify its terms." In re Agent Orange Prod. Liab. Litig., 821 F.2d 139, 144 (2d Cir. 1987) (citation omitted); see also Daigle v. West, 225 F. Supp. 2d 236, 245 (2d Cir. 2002) ("since the terms of the settlement agreement are clear and unambiguous, this court should not look beyond the four corners of the agreement itself"); Huertas v. East River Hous. Corp., 993 F.2d 1263, 1266 (2d Cir. 1993) ("courts should not go beyond the terms of the agreement when interpreting it"); Suarez v. Ward, 896 F.2d 28, 30-1 (2d Cir. 1990) ("if the language of a settlement agreement is unambiguous, its meaning must be discerned within the four corners of the agreement").

  There are, however, limited circumstances in which a district court is authorized to impose or amend terms of a settlement agreement. For example, a court may alter or impose terms to allocate Settlement proceeds to class members equitably, Dashingo, 312 F. Supp. 2d at 446-7, modify benefit allocation if the plan's formula would lead to an inequitable result, Beecher v. Able, 575 F.2d 1010, 1016 (2d Cir. 1978), amend the agreement when the terms were not the result of negotiations between the parties, id., and to determine reasonable attorneys' fees, Jones v. Amalgamated Warbasse Houses, Inc., 721 F.2d 881, 885 (2d Cir. 1983).

  Here, the Settlement Agreement lacks any mention of either treble damages or prejudgment interest.*fn1 The thirty-page agreement is noticeably silent as to damages, treble or otherwise. As such, the Court did not insert treble damages or prejudgment interest into the four corners of the Settlement Agreement and it would have been wrong to do so. See Daigle, 225 F. Supp. 2d at 245. Plaintiffs fail even to allege that the allocation formula leads to an inequitable result, and joins in the thought that the Settlement Agreement was the result of hard fought negotiations between sophisticated parties. According to the Plaintiffs' characterization of the negotiations:
Each settlement was negotiated extensively and at arm's length by highly experienced and qualified counsel, with a full knowledge of the facts of the case, who were therefore uniquely situated to assess the relative strengths and weaknesses of their respective positions. .
(Pl. Mem. of Points and Auth. in Sup. of Final App. Of Settlements and Prop. Alloc., at 10).

  Accordingly, as none of the limited exceptions are applicable and the Court having allocated the settlement funds in accordance with the express terms of the Settlement Agreement, that branch of the motion seeking the inclusion of either ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.