Anderson v. City of New York
- Willis
- 1:24-cv-03473
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Anderson v. City of New York, Judge Willis approved the parties’ Fair Labor Standards Act settlement and discontinued the action with prejudice, without costs.
The plaintiffs, including Francesca Anderson, the City of New York, and plaintiffs’ counsel were affected by the settlement approval and the order discontinuing the action.
What happened
Francesca Anderson, et al. v. City of New York was a case under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The parties reached an agreement in principle and asked the court to approve their proposed settlement.
The court reviewed the plaintiffs’ explanation and the settlement terms to decide whether the agreement was a fair and reasonable compromise of the claims. The court also found the agreement adequate to compensate the plaintiffs’ lawyers for their fees.
Judge Jennifer E. Willis approved the settlement. She discontinued the action with prejudice and without costs, while allowing the plaintiffs to ask within 30 days to restore the case if any written settlement documentation was not completed. The court did not retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement.
The detailed version
- Anderson v. City of New York · No. 1:24-cv-03473
- Willis
- Oct. 15, 2025
Background
The plaintiffs brought this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The parties consented to the jurisdiction of United States Magistrate Judge Jennifer E. Willis under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). After reaching an agreement in principle, they submitted a proposed settlement for judicial approval. The plaintiffs also filed a motion and memorandum explaining why they believed the settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate.
Settlement Approval
The court conducted the fairness review required for Fair Labor Standards Act settlements. Based on the plaintiffs’ submissions, the settlement terms, and the relevant circumstances, the court found that the proposed agreement was fair, reasonable, and adequate both to address the plaintiffs’ claims and to compensate plaintiffs’ counsel for legal fees. The court therefore approved the agreement.
Jurisdiction and Disposition
The court stated that its order did not incorporate the settlement’s terms. Because the settlement did not provide that the court would retain jurisdiction to enforce it, and because the court did not independently decide to retain jurisdiction, the approval order did not preserve federal-court jurisdiction for enforcement of the agreement.
The court ordered that the action be discontinued with prejudice and without costs. However, if any part of the written settlement documentation was not completed within 30 days of the order, the plaintiffs could apply by letter to restore the action to the court’s active calendar.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.