Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 30, 2019

Christensen v. GW Associates of NY Inc.

Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Docket
7:18-cv-05798
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
FlsaContractCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Christensen v. GW Associates, Judge Briccetti ordered defendants to pay a $100,000 settlement late penalty after finding a material breach.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs and their counsel were awarded $100,000, and the defendants were found jointly responsible for the settlement’s late penalty.

What happened

In Christensen v. GW Associates of NY Inc., the parties settled a Fair Labor Standards Act case, and the court approved the settlement and dismissed the action with prejudice. The settlement required defendants to begin payments by May 26, 2019.

Defendants made no payments. After plaintiffs notified defendants’ counsel of the delinquency on May 29, 2019, defendants still did not pay. The agreement required a $100,000 late penalty if the missed payment was not made within seven days after notice.

Judge Vincent L. Briccetti found that the $100,000 penalty was due by July 5, 2019, and that defendants materially breached the settlement agreement. The court entered judgment in favor of plaintiffs for $100,000.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Christensen v. GW Associates of NY Inc. · No. 7:18-cv-05798
Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Date
Dec. 30, 2019

Background

This was a Fair Labor Standards Act case brought by Liliana Christensen and other plaintiffs against GW Associates of NY Inc. and other defendants. On May 13, 2019, the parties filed a settlement agreement, a joint statement explaining the basis for the agreement, and a proposed order. On May 15, 2019, the court approved the settlement and dismissed the action with prejudice. On November 18, 2019, the court amended that order to clarify that it retained jurisdiction to enforce the agreement.

Settlement terms and alleged breach

The agreement required defendants to begin making payments by May 26, 2019, within 10 days after court approval. Defendants did not make any payments. The agreement required plaintiffs to give written notice of a missed payment, and plaintiffs notified defendants’ counsel, Denis Kiely, on May 29, 2019. Defendants still made no payments.

The agreement further provided that if defendants failed to make the late payment within seven days after written notice, they would jointly owe plaintiffs and their counsel a $100,000 late penalty, payable within 30 days after the breach.

Plaintiffs’ motion and ruling

Plaintiffs moved to enforce the settlement agreement and requested judgment against defendants for $100,000. The court found that the late penalty was owed and that payment was due by July 5, 2019. Because defendants had not paid plaintiffs or their counsel, the court found that defendants materially breached the agreement and entered judgment in favor of plaintiffs for $100,000.

Disposition

The opinion states that the court found defendants owed the $100,000 late penalty and entered judgment for plaintiffs in that amount. It does not expressly use the word “granted” for plaintiffs’ motion in the legible portion provided.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.