USCA4 Appeal: 25-1001 Doc: 69 Filed: 11/25/2025 Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-1001

JONG CHEON LEE,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

AGAPE HEALTH MANAGEMENT, INC.; DONG CHUL CHOI; SUN OK LEE,

Defendants – Appellants.

No. 25-1002

HYE YOUNG SON; JAE MIN LEE; KYONG SIM CHE; MYEONG SUK CHOI; BO YOUNG LEE; YOON HEE OH; YOON JUNG YIM; SOONKUM PARK; HEESANG KIM; MYOUNG HUI MONTGOMERY,

Plaintiffs – Appellees,

v.

AGAPE HEALTH MANAGEMENT, INC.; DONG CHUL CHOI; SUN OK LEE,

Defendants – Appellants,

and

JEONG EUI LEE; HYE HYANG YI; TAE KWON OHM,

Defendants. USCA4 Appeal: 25-1001 Doc: 69 Filed: 11/25/2025 Pg: 2 of 5

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. William Edward Fitzpatrick, Magistrate Judge. (1:22-cv-00311-WEF; 1:20- cv-01047-WEF; 1:21-cv-00097-WEF; 1:21-cv-00408-WEF; 1:21-cv-00435-WEF; 1:21- cv-00696-WEF; 1:21-cv-00756-WEF)

Submitted: October 10, 2025 Decided: November 25, 2025

Before GREGORY, HARRIS, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: James Y. Victory, HANMI CENTER FOR JUSTICE, PLLC, Annandale, Virginia, for Appellants. Michael Hyunkweon Ryu, RYU & RYU, PLC, Vienna, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1001 Doc: 69 Filed: 11/25/2025 Pg: 3 of 5

PER CURIAM:

Agape Health Management, Inc., and its officers appeal an award of attorney’s fees

and costs in two consolidated cases, totaling $372,963 in fees and $37,485 in costs. Finding

no abuse of discretion in calculating these awards, we affirm.

The plaintiffs in these cases are eleven former employees of Agape, who sued the

company and its officers in two separate actions for violations of the Fair Labor Standards

Act. After years of pretrial proceedings and three settlement conferences mediated by the

district court, the parties settled both disputes. Pursuant to the terms of their settlement

agreements, the plaintiffs then petitioned for attorney’s fees and costs.

In an oral ruling, the district court granted the plaintiffs’ petitions in part. Although

the plaintiffs had sought over $700,000 in attorney’s fees, the court cut back substantially

on that request, awarding a total of $380,000 in fees, as well as the full $39,632 in costs

sought by the plaintiffs. Neither side was satisfied, and both appealed the rulings.

After hearing oral argument, this court vacated the awards, finding that the district

court had not sufficiently explained the legal and factual bases for its rulings. Lee v. Agape

Health Mgmt., Inc.,

, at *4 (4th Cir. July 29, 2024). For instance, the

district court had not discussed the “Barber factors,” under which a court is to assess the

reasonableness of attorney hours expended and the rate charged for those services.

at

*2–3 (citing Barber v. Kimbrell’s, Inc.,

, 226 n.28 (4th Cir. 1978)). Nor had

it addressed some of the defendants’ objections to the plaintiffs’ proposed figures or

explained why it adopted the plaintiffs’ numbers over those objections. Id. at *3. Though

the awards might well prove to be reasonable, we concluded, this lack of explanation

3 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1001 Doc: 69 Filed: 11/25/2025 Pg: 4 of 5

impeded meaningful appellate review. Id. at *4. Accordingly, we vacated the awards and

remanded for a reevaluation of the plaintiffs’ fee petitions. Id.

On remand, the district court reconsidered the petitions in light of our decision, and

again awarded fees and costs – this time, in the somewhat smaller amounts of $372,963 in

total fees and $37,485 in total costs. The court issued a comprehensive written opinion in

each of the two consolidated cases, applying all twelve of the Barber factors, setting forth

detailed findings regarding the hours and rates at issue, and engaging closely with the

parties’ arguments at each step of the inquiry. See Lee v. Agape Health Mgmt., Inc.,

, at *3–14 (E.D. Va. Dec. 16, 2024); Son v. Agape Health Mgmt., Inc.,

, at *3–18 (E.D. Va. Dec. 5, 2024). Agape again appealed the awards.

We review awards of attorney’s fees only for abuse of discretion, and they “must

not be overturned unless [they are] clearly wrong.” Berry v. Schulman,

(4th Cir. 2015) (citation and quotation marks omitted); see McAfee v. Boczar,

(4th Cir. 2013). We have reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs in detail, and we

discern no abuse of discretion here. The district court fully complied with our earlier

decision in this case, applying the correct legal standard and thoroughly explaining its

carefully considered findings. And the ultimate awards, we conclude, fall well within the

district court’s broad discretion.

Accordingly, we affirm the award of fees and costs in both consolidated cases. We

dispense with a second oral argument in this long-running case because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

4 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1001 Doc: 69 Filed: 11/25/2025 Pg: 5 of 5

AFFIRMED

5