Tangtiwatanapaibul v. Tom & Toon Inc
- Katharine Parker
- 1:17-cv-00816
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Tangtiwatanapaibul v. Tom & Toon, Judge Parker approved the FLSA settlement, declined to retain enforcement jurisdiction, and discontinued the action with prejudice and without costs.
The plaintiffs and defendants were affected by approval of their settlement, discontinuation of the action with prejudice and without costs, and the court’s decision not to retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement.
What happened
In Tangtiwatanapaibul v. Tom & Toon, the parties reached an agreement in principle resolving claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. They asked the court to approve their proposed settlement.
Judge Parker reviewed the settlement and the plaintiffs’ request that it be found fair, reasonable, and adequate. The court considered the circumstances, including its familiarity with the strengths and weaknesses of the parties’ positions from settlement-related conferences.
Judge Parker approved the settlement, declined to retain jurisdiction to enforce it, and ordered that the action be discontinued with prejudice and without costs. The clerk was directed to close the case.
The detailed version
- Tangtiwatanapaibul v. Tom & Toon Inc · No. 1:17-cv-00816
- Katharine Parker
- Oct. 13, 2020
Background
The plaintiffs brought this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The parties consented to the court’s authority to decide the case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). After reaching an agreement in principle, they submitted a proposed settlement for judicial approval.
Settlement review
The court explained that settlements of Fair Labor Standards Act claims require judicial fairness review under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. The plaintiffs also submitted a letter asking the court to find the settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate. After reviewing the submissions and considering the totality of the circumstances—including the court’s familiarity with the strengths and weaknesses of the parties’ positions from several settlement-related telephone conferences—the court found that the settlement fairly and adequately addressed the plaintiffs’ claims and compensated their counsel for legal fees.
Rulings
The court approved the proposed settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate. The parties had asked the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement if necessary, but the court declined that request and stated that it would not independently decide to retain jurisdiction. The court said that its approval of the settlement should not be understood as retaining jurisdiction for enforcement.
Because the settlement was approved, the court ordered that the action be discontinued with prejudice and without costs. “With prejudice” means the action cannot be brought again. The clerk was directed to close the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.