Opurum v. Mount Sinai Hospital
- Gabriel Gorenstein
- 1:20-cv-03461
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Opurum v. Mount Sinai Hospital, Judge Gorenstein approved the parties’ fair and reasonable settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice.
Elizabeth Opurum, Mount Sinai Hospital, and the other defendants were affected by approval of the settlement and dismissal of the action with prejudice. The opinion does not identify the settlement’s terms.
What happened
Elizabeth Opurum brought Fair Labor Standards Act claims against Mount Sinai Hospital and other defendants. The parties agreed that Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein could decide the matter and submitted a proposed settlement.
The court reviewed the settlement under the required standard and found it fair and reasonable. It approved the settlement, but the opinion does not state its terms.
Judge Gorenstein dismissed the action with prejudice and without costs except as provided in the settlement agreement. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement, found any pending motions moot, and directed the Clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- Opurum v. Mount Sinai Hospital · No. 1:20-cv-03461
- Gabriel Gorenstein
- Sept. 3, 2020
Background
Elizabeth Opurum’s action included claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act. On September 2, 2020, the parties consented to have the matter decided by United States Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). They submitted a proposed settlement agreement.
Settlement Review
The court reviewed the proposed settlement under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., which requires judicial review of certain Fair Labor Standards Act settlements. The court found the settlement fair and reasonable and approved it. The opinion does not describe the settlement’s terms.
Disposition
The court dismissed the action with prejudice and without costs, except as the settlement agreement may provide. “With prejudice” means the action cannot be brought again. The court retained jurisdiction, meaning continuing authority, to enforce the settlement agreement. It ruled that any pending motions were moot and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.