Atterberry v. Cornell Grace, P.C.
- Debra Freeman
- 1:20-cv-04166
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Atterberry v. Cornell Grace, Judge Freeman approved the parties’ wage-settlement agreement and discontinued the action with prejudice.
Pilar Atterberry, her counsel, Cornell Grace, P.C., the other defendants, and the parties to the settlement were affected by the approval and termination of the action. The opinion does not state the settlement’s terms or identify any additional persons who were bound by it.
What happened
Pilar Atterberry brought Atterberry v. Cornell Grace under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The parties reached an agreement in principle to resolve the action and asked the court to approve it.
The court reviewed the proposed agreement, the parties’ explanation of its terms, and their report that negotiations were extensive, conducted at arm’s length, and assisted by a private mediator. It found the agreement fair, reasonable, and adequate to address Atterberry’s claims and compensate her counsel.
Judge Freeman approved the settlement, granted the parties’ request for permission to file a stipulation ending the case, and discontinued the action with prejudice and without costs or fees to any party. The court also said it was not retaining jurisdiction to enforce the settlement, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
The detailed version
- Atterberry v. Cornell Grace, P.C. · No. 1:20-cv-04166
- Debra Freeman
- July 8, 2021
Background
Pilar Atterberry brought this action individually and on behalf of others described in the complaint as similarly situated. The claims arose under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The parties consented to proceed before the magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
The parties reported that they had reached an agreement in principle and submitted a proposed settlement for judicial approval. They also submitted a letter explaining why they believed the agreement was fair, reasonable, and adequate. The court stated that the agreement had reportedly been reached after extensive arm’s-length negotiations and with the assistance of a private mediator.
Court’s Analysis
The court reviewed the parties’ submission and the proposed agreement to determine whether it represented a reasonable compromise of the claims. Applying the required fairness review for settlements under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the court considered the circumstances described in the parties’ letter and the terms of the agreement.
The court found that the settlement terms were fair, reasonable, and adequate both to redress Atterberry’s claims and to compensate her counsel for legal fees. The court therefore approved the agreement.
The court clarified that its order did not incorporate the settlement’s terms. The parties had not asked the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement, and the court made no independent determination to retain such jurisdiction. The court stated that its approval of the settlement did not itself mean that the court would retain enforcement jurisdiction.
Disposition
The court granted the parties’ request for permission to submit a stipulation discontinuing the action with prejudice, while noting that filing the stipulation was not required for the court to dismiss the action based on the settlement. As a result of approving the executed settlement agreement, the court discontinued the action with prejudice and without costs or fees to any party. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.