Feretti v. MOTION PT Group, Inc.
- Vyskocil
- 1:21-cv-05833
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Feretti v. MOTION PT Group, Inc., Judge Vyskocil approved a fair federal wage-law settlement and discontinued the case, subject to possible restoration.
The plaintiff and defendants in the wage-and-hour action were affected: their settlement was approved, and the case was discontinued subject to the stated deadline for restoring it.
What happened
In Feretti v. MOTION PT Group, Inc., the parties told the court that they had reached a settlement in principle. They submitted the proposed agreement and materials supporting its fairness, and the opinion says the parties were represented by experienced lawyers.
The court found that the settlement was fair, reasonable, and reached through arm’s-length negotiations. The parties also said that the remaining state and city wage claims were being settled at the same time under a confidential agreement. The court did not express an opinion about whether the plaintiff’s lawyer’s rates were reasonable.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil approved the settlement and discontinued the case without costs to any party. The parties could ask to restore the case to the court’s calendar if they could not put the settlement in writing, but that request had to be made by February 7, 2022; otherwise, the dismissal would be with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Feretti v. MOTION PT Group, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-05833
- Vyskocil
- Jan. 6, 2022
Background
On December 8, 2021, the parties informed the Court that the case had been settled in principle. At the Court’s direction, they submitted a proposed settlement agreement and documents supporting its fairness.
Settlement Review
The Court reviewed the settlement for fairness under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Second Circuit law. Considering all the circumstances, the Court found that the settlement was fair and reasonable and resulted from arm’s-length negotiations by parties represented by experienced counsel. The Court specifically stated that it was not deciding whether the rates charged by Plaintiff’s attorney were reasonable.
The parties jointly represented that the remaining state and city wage claims were being settled at the same time under a confidential settlement agreement.
Disposition
The Court approved the settlement. It ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring the action to the Court’s calendar if the parties were unable to put their settlement in writing, provided that any application to restore the action was made by February 7, 2022. If no such application was made by that date, the dismissal of the action would be with prejudice.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.