Urbano v. Seabreeze Fish Market Inc.
- Tarnofsky
- 1:24-cv-01031
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Urbano v. Seabreeze Fish Market Inc., Judge Tarnofsky approved the fair FLSA settlement and dismissed the action with prejudice.
David Urbano and the defendants were bound by the approved settlement, and the action was dismissed with prejudice.
What happened
David Urbano sued Seabreeze Fish Market Inc. and other defendants for money damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The parties jointly asked the court to approve their settlement agreement.
Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky reviewed whether the agreement was fair, reasonable, and reached through arm’s-length negotiations rather than employer overreaching. She considered the risks and costs of continuing the case, possible recoveries, the agreement’s release terms, possible fraud or collusion, and attorney-fee provisions.
Judge Tarnofsky found the settlement fair and reasonable and approved it. Consistent with the agreement, she dismissed the action with prejudice and directed the clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- Urbano v. Seabreeze Fish Market Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-01031
- Tarnofsky
- July 3, 2024
Background
David Urbano brought an action for money damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, a federal wage-and-hour law, and various provisions of the New York Labor Law. The parties jointly requested approval of their fully executed settlement agreement, which they submitted on June 28, 2024.
Settlement Review
The court explained that a federal court must review an agreement settling a Fair Labor Standards Act case to determine whether it is fair and reasonable and resulted from arm’s-length negotiation rather than employer overreaching. Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky reviewed the settlement agreement and the parties’ letter addressing its fairness. Among other matters, she considered the prior proceedings; the risks, burdens, and costs of continuing the action; the range of possible recoveries; the agreement’s terms and releases; whether the agreement resulted from arm’s-length bargaining; the possibility of fraud or collusion; and the reasonableness of the attorney fees.
Ruling
Judge Tarnofsky found that the settlement agreement was fair and reasonable and approved it. Consistent with the settlement agreement, the court dismissed the action with prejudice and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.