Wallace v. International House of Pancakes, LLC
- Sarah Netburn
- 1:21-cv-06993
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Niquan Wallace v. TriHop 177th Street LLC, Judge Netburn approved the parties’ settlement and dismissed the action with prejudice.
Niquan Wallace and the defendants, including TriHop 177th Street LLC, whose action was resolved through the approved settlement and dismissed with prejudice.
What happened
Niquan Wallace sued TriHop 177th Street LLC and other defendants in a Fair Labor Standards Act case. The parties told the court they had reached a settlement in principle and submitted an agreement for review.
Judge Vyskocil previously found several problems with the proposed agreement. After the parties consented to a magistrate judge’s authority, they submitted a revised agreement.
The court found that the revised agreement fixed the earlier problems and was fair and reasonable. Judge Sarah Netburn approved the settlement and dismissed the action with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Wallace v. International House of Pancakes, LLC · No. 1:21-cv-06993
- Sarah Netburn
- May 28, 2024
Background
This Fair Labor Standards Act case involved a proposed settlement. The parties previously informed the court that they had reached a settlement in principle and submitted an agreement for court review. That review was required under the Second Circuit’s decision in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, which requires judicial review of certain settlements in wage-and-hour cases.
Judge Vyskocil reviewed the first proposed settlement agreement and identified several deficiencies. The parties later consented to the jurisdiction of a United States magistrate judge and filed a revised settlement agreement.
Ruling
Judge Sarah Netburn determined that the revised agreement cured the deficiencies identified by Judge Vyskocil and was fair and reasonable. The court approved the settlement and dismissed this action with prejudice.
Effect of the Order
The order resolved the action based on the approved settlement. Because the dismissal was with prejudice, the dismissal bars refiling the same action.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.