In Torres v. Gristede’s Operating Corp., No. 12-3336 (2d Cir. May 22, 2013), plaintiffs brought a class action against their employer alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. After the claims were settled for approximately $3.5 million, the district court ordered defendant to pay more than $3.8 million in attorneys’ fees and costs, finding that the amount was reasonable given defendant’s “vigorous approach to litigating the case” for more than seven years. The Second Circuit affirmed the award. The court rejected defendant’s argument that the district court had abused its discretion by failing to analyze in detail plaintiffs’ counsel’s billing records, which defendant argued evidenced that the requested fees were inflated. Quoting the Supreme Court, the Second Circuit stated that trial courts need not and should not become “green-eyeshade accountants” when evaluating fee requests, and should aim only “to do rough justice, not to achieve auditing perfection.” The court also rejected defendant’s claim that the fee and cost award – which exceeded the amount of the underlying settlement – was disproportionate, and should not have exceeded the customary one-third recovery in typical contingency fee cases. The court held that the award was reasonable given that plaintiffs had obtained, among other things, a significant monetary recovery. The court concluded that while the trial court could have capped the fee award at standard contingency-fee levels, it was not required to do so where, as here, it concluded that higher fees were reasonably incurred.