Cunningham v. New York Junior Tennis League, Inc.
- Jesse Furman
- 1:18-cv-01743
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Cunningham v. New York Junior Tennis League, Judge Furman approved a fair FLSA settlement, denied confidentiality, dismissed the case with prejudice, and closed it.
Ikeam Cunningham and New York Junior Tennis League, Inc.; the settlement agreement remains publicly available on the docket.
What happened
Cunningham v. New York Junior Tennis League, Inc. involved a settlement in an action brought in part under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage law. The court reviewed the parties’ settlement agreement and their explanation of why it should be approved.
The court found the settlement fair and reasonable considering the nature and scope of Ikeam Cunningham’s individual claim. It also ruled that the agreement should remain on the public docket and denied the defendant’s request to remove it.
Judge Jesse M. Furman approved the settlement subject to the stated terms, required court approval for any modification, dismissed the case with prejudice, and declared all pending motions moot. The clerk was directed to close the case, and defense counsel was ordered to serve Cunningham with the order by email and regular mail.
The detailed version
- Cunningham v. New York Junior Tennis League, Inc. · No. 1:18-cv-01743
- Jesse Furman
- Aug. 11, 2020
Background
The parties reached a settlement in an action brought in part under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), a federal law governing wages and working conditions. The court had previously ordered the parties to explain the basis for the proposed settlement and why it should be approved, citing the factors used to evaluate FLSA settlements.
Court’s Rulings
After reviewing the parties’ letter and settlement agreement, the court found that the settlement was fair and reasonable in light of the nature and scope of Ikeam Cunningham’s individual claim.
The court held that any modification of the settlement agreement required court approval, even if the agreement purported to allow the parties to modify it without court approval. The court also found no basis for keeping the settlement confidential because judicial documents are generally subject to public access. Accordingly, the court denied the defendant’s request to remove the settlement agreement from the docket.
Subject to those terms, the court approved the settlement. It dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning the case was ended and could not be refiled as the same action. The court also ruled that all pending motions were moot and directed the clerk to close the case.
Additional Order
Defense counsel was required to serve a copy of the order on Cunningham by both email and regular mail no later than August 18, 2020, and to file proof of service.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.