Kokolli v. Marc/Shariff Restaurant Inc.
- Katharine Parker
- 1:19-cv-06452
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Kokolli v. March/Shariff Restaurant, Judge Parker approved the parties’ settlement and dismissed the action with prejudice and without costs.
The two plaintiffs, the defendant(s) named in the caption, and plaintiffs’ counsel were affected by the approved settlement and dismissal.
What happened
Arbnor Kokolli and Zahirul Islam sued March/Shariff Restaurant Inc. and others under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The parties reached an agreement in principle and asked the court to approve their proposed settlement.
The court reviewed the settlement and found its terms fair, reasonable, and adequate for addressing the plaintiffs’ claims and compensating their counsel for legal fees. The court also agreed to retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement if necessary.
Judge Katharine H. Parker ordered that the action be discontinued with prejudice and without costs, while allowing a plaintiff to seek restoration of the case within 30 days if any part of the settlement’s written documentation was not completed. The Clerk was directed to close the case.
The detailed version
- Kokolli v. Marc/Shariff Restaurant Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-06452
- Katharine Parker
- June 1, 2020
Background
The plaintiffs brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The parties consented to the court’s authority under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). After reaching an agreement in principle, they submitted a proposed settlement agreement and a letter explaining why they believed the settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate.
Court’s Ruling
The court reviewed the proposed settlement to determine whether it represented a reasonable compromise of the claims. Considering the parties’ submissions, their representations, and the settlement’s terms, the court found the agreement fair, reasonable, and adequate both to address the plaintiffs’ claims and to compensate plaintiffs’ counsel for legal fees. The court approved the settlement.
Disposition
The court ordered that it would retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement if necessary. Because the settlement was approved, the action was discontinued with prejudice and without costs. The order provided that, within 30 days of its date, a plaintiff could apply by letter to restore the action to the active calendar if any aspect of the settlement’s written documentation was not completed. Judge Katharine H. Parker also directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.