Komarova v. Uyola
- Katharine Parker
- 1:20-cv-08350
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Komarova v. Uyola, Judge Parker approved the parties’ settlement and discontinued the action with prejudice and without costs.
Natalia Komarova, Rosalie Uyola, Jonathan Tatkon-Coker, and the parties’ counsel are affected by the approved settlement and the discontinuance of the action.
What happened
In Komarova v. Uyola, Natalia Komarova sued Rosalie Uyola and Jonathan Tatkon-Coker under the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Labor Law, and New York City rules and regulations. The parties reached an agreement in principle and asked the court to approve it.
The court reviewed the proposed settlement, the parties’ explanation of its fairness, the agreement’s terms, and the strengths and weaknesses of their positions. It found the settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate, including its treatment of the claims and legal fees.
Judge Katharine H. Parker approved the settlement, retained jurisdiction to enforce it if necessary, and discontinued the action with prejudice and without costs. The court allowed Komarova to seek restoration of the case within 30 days if written settlement documentation was not completed, and directed the clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- Komarova v. Uyola · No. 1:20-cv-08350
- Katharine Parker
- May 26, 2021
Background
Natalia Komarova brought this action against Rosalie Uyola and Jonathan Tatkon-Coker under the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Labor Law, and New York City rules and regulations. The parties consented to the court’s authority under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). They reached an agreement in principle and submitted a proposed settlement agreement for court approval, along with a letter explaining why they believed it was fair, reasonable, and adequate.
Court’s review
Because the action included claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the court reviewed the settlement for fairness. The court considered the parties’ submissions, the settlement terms, the representations in their letter, and the court’s familiarity with the strengths and weaknesses of the parties’ positions based on a telephone conference held to assist settlement. The opinion does not state the settlement amount or provide the agreement’s specific terms.
Ruling
The court found that the proposed settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate to address the claims in the action and compensate the plaintiffs’ counsel for legal fees, and approved the agreement. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement if necessary. It discontinued the action with prejudice and without costs, while allowing the plaintiff to apply by letter within 30 days to restore the action to the active calendar if any written settlement documentation was not completed. The clerk was directed to close the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.