Canteen v. City of New York
- Tarnofsky
- 1:24-cv-05371
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Furney Canteen v. City of New York, Judge Tarnofsky approved the parties’ fair and reasonable settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice.
The plaintiffs, the City of New York, their counsel, and anyone involved in a dispute arising from the approved settlement are affected by the order.
What happened
In Furney Canteen, et al. v. City of New York, the parties jointly asked the court to approve their settlement of an action for money damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The court reviewed the agreement, the parties’ explanation of its fairness, the risks and costs of continuing the case, possible recoveries, the releases, the bargaining process, potential fraud or collusion, and attorneys’ fees. It found the settlement fair and reasonable and approved it.
Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky dismissed the action with prejudice, retained continuing jurisdiction over disputes arising from the settlement, and directed the clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- Canteen v. City of New York · No. 1:24-cv-05371
- Tarnofsky
- Oct. 7, 2025
Background
The case was an action for money damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The parties jointly requested approval of their settlement agreement and submitted a fully executed copy on October 3, 2025.
Settlement review
The court explained that federal courts must review Fair Labor Standards Act settlements to determine whether they are fair, reasonable, and reached through arm’s-length negotiations rather than employer overreaching. The court considered the prior proceedings; the risks, burdens, and costs of continuing the action; the possible range of recoveries; the settlement’s terms and releases; whether the agreement resulted from arm’s-length bargaining; the possibility of fraud or collusion; and the reasonableness of the attorneys’ fees.
The court declined to perform a lodestar cross-check, which is a comparison of percentage-based fees with an estimate based on hours worked and reasonable hourly rates. It found that review unnecessary in light of the fee agreement between the plaintiffs and their counsel, particularly because the agreed one-third percentage is customary in Fair Labor Standards Act cases.
Ruling
The court found the settlement agreement fair and reasonable and approved it. Consistent with the agreement, the action was dismissed with prejudice. The court retained continuing jurisdiction to decide disputes arising from the settlement agreement and directed the clerk to close the case. Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky signed the order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.