Desir v. NYU Langone Hospitals
- Sarah Cave
- 1:19-cv-08144
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Desir v. NYU Langone Health System: Judge Cave approved the FLSA settlement, dismissed the action with prejudice, and closed the case.
Cindy Desir, the FLSA collective plaintiffs and class, and NYU Langone Health System and the other defendants were affected by the approved settlement and dismissal. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement.
What happened
In Cindy Desir v. NYU Langone Health System, et al., the parties asked the court to approve a settlement in this wage-and-hour case under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
After reviewing the settlement agreement and related materials, the court found that the settlement terms, including reimbursement of Desir’s lawyers’ costs, appeared fair and reasonable. Desir’s lawyers agreed not to seek reimbursement of attorney fees.
Judge Sarah L. Cave approved the settlement, dismissed the action with prejudice and without costs except as provided in the agreement, and retained authority to enforce the settlement. She also found any pending motions moot and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
The detailed version
- Desir v. NYU Langone Hospitals · No. 1:19-cv-08144
- Sarah Cave
- Jan. 14, 2022
Background
This was a wage-and-hour case brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The parties consented to Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave’s jurisdiction for all purposes. They jointly submitted a motion asking the court to approve their proposed settlement and provided a settlement agreement.
Settlement Review
The court reviewed the joint motion, settlement agreement, and accompanying exhibits. Applying the standards used for reviewing FLSA settlements, the court found that all settlement terms appeared fair and reasonable under the circumstances. This included reimbursement of costs to Desir’s counsel. The court noted that counsel had agreed not to seek reimbursement of attorney fees.
Ruling and Effect
Judge Sarah L. Cave approved the settlement. The action was dismissed with prejudice and without costs except as stated in the settlement agreement. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement, ruled that any pending motions were moot, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the settlement-approval filing and the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.