Policarpio v. Yorkville Deli Market Corp.
- Willis
- 1:23-cv-10759
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Policarpio v. Yorkville Deli, Judge Willis approved the parties’ fair settlement and discontinued the Fair Labor Standards Act case with prejudice.
Baltazar Policarpio, Yorkville Deli Market Corp., and the plaintiff’s counsel; the settlement was approved and the case was closed subject to the stated 30-day restoration provision.
What happened
Baltazar Policarpio sued Yorkville Deli Market Corp. under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The parties reached an agreement in principle and asked the court to review and approve their proposed settlement.
The court reviewed the plaintiff’s submissions and the settlement terms under the required fairness review for Fair Labor Standards Act settlements. It found the agreement fair, reasonable, and adequate to address the plaintiff’s claims and compensate the plaintiff’s counsel.
Judge Willis approved the settlement and discontinued the case with prejudice and without costs. The court did not retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement. However, within 30 days, the plaintiff may ask to restore the case if any written settlement documentation is not completed.
The detailed version
- Policarpio v. Yorkville Deli Market Corp. · No. 1:23-cv-10759
- Willis
- Apr. 3, 2025
Background
Baltazar Policarpio brought this action against Yorkville Deli Market Corp. under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The parties consented to the authority of the magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). After reaching an agreement in principle to resolve the case, they submitted a proposed settlement for court approval. The plaintiff also submitted a motion and legal memorandum explaining why the proposed settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate.
Settlement review
The court conducted the required judicial fairness review of the Fair Labor Standards Act settlement. Considering the relevant circumstances, the plaintiff’s submissions, and the proposed agreement’s terms, the court found that the settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate both to address the plaintiff’s claims and to compensate the plaintiff’s counsel for legal fees. The court therefore approved the proposed settlement.
Jurisdiction and disposition
The order did not incorporate the settlement’s terms. Because the settlement did not state that the court would retain jurisdiction to enforce it, and because the court did not independently decide to retain jurisdiction, the approval did not give the court continuing jurisdiction over enforcement of the agreement.
Judge Willis ordered that the action be discontinued with prejudice and without costs. The order included one condition: if any part of the written settlement documentation was not completed within 30 days of the order, the plaintiff could apply by letter to restore the action to the court’s active calendar. The Clerk of Court was requested to close the settlement-approval docket entry and close the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.