Davis v. Community Resource Center for The Developmentally Disabled, Inc.
- Gabriel Gorenstein
- 1:20-cv-07038
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Davis v. Community Resource Center, Judge Gorenstein approved the fair and reasonable wage settlement and dismissed the action with prejudice.
The settlement approval and dismissal affected Tynetta Davis and Community Resource Center for The Developmentally Disabled, Inc.; the opinion does not state the settlement's specific terms.
What happened
Tynetta Davis sued Community Resource Center for The Developmentally Disabled, Inc. under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage-and-hour law. The parties agreed that Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein could decide the case.
The parties submitted a proposed settlement agreement. After reviewing it, the court found that the settlement was fair and reasonable and approved it.
Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein dismissed the action with prejudice and without costs except as provided in the settlement agreement. The court kept authority to enforce the settlement, ruled that any pending motions were moot, and directed the Clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- Davis v. Community Resource Center for The Developmentally Disabled, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-07038
- Gabriel Gorenstein
- Apr. 19, 2021
Background
Tynetta Davis brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act against Community Resource Center for The Developmentally Disabled, Inc. On April 16, 2021, the parties consented to have the matter decided by United States Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
Settlement Review
The parties filed a proposed settlement agreement. The court reviewed the agreement under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. and found that it was fair and reasonable. The court approved the settlement.
Disposition
Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein ordered that the action be dismissed with prejudice and without costs except as stated in the settlement agreement. The court retained jurisdiction, meaning authority, to enforce the settlement agreement. Any pending motions were declared moot, and the Clerk was directed to close the case.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.