Narvaez v. U.S. Crane & Rigging, LLC
- Katharine Parker
- 1:19-cv-02394
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Narvaez v. U.S. Crane & Rigging, Judge Parker approved the parties’ FLSA and New York Labor Law settlement and discontinued the action with prejudice.
The settlement approval affected Adrian Vinicio Andrade Narvaez, U.S. Crane & Rigging, LLC and the other defendants, and the plaintiff’s counsel; the case was discontinued with prejudice and without costs.
What happened
Adrian Vinicio Andrade Narvaez sued U.S. Crane & Rigging, LLC and others under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The parties reached an agreement in principle and asked the court to approve their proposed settlement.
The court reviewed the settlement and the parties’ explanation of why it was fair, reasonable, and adequate. It approved the agreement, including compensation for the plaintiff’s claims and his counsel’s legal fees, and agreed to retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement if necessary.
Judge Katharine H. Parker ordered that the action be discontinued with prejudice and without costs, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
The detailed version
- Narvaez v. U.S. Crane & Rigging, LLC · No. 1:19-cv-02394
- Katharine Parker
- Jan. 19, 2022
Background
Adrian Vinicio Andrade Narvaez brought an action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law against U.S. Crane & Rigging, LLC and others. The parties consented to the court’s authority under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). After reaching an agreement in principle, they submitted a proposed settlement for judicial approval, along with a letter explaining why they believed the agreement was fair, reasonable, and adequate.
Court’s Analysis
The court reviewed the parties’ submissions to determine whether the settlement represented a reasonable compromise of the claims. It considered the totality of the relevant circumstances, the parties’ representations, and the settlement’s terms. The opinion does not state the settlement amount or provide the agreement’s other specific financial terms.
Ruling
The court found that the proposed settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate both to address the plaintiff’s claims and to compensate the plaintiff’s counsel for legal fees, and approved the agreement. At the parties’ request, the court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement if necessary. As a result of the approval, the court ordered that the action be discontinued with prejudice and without costs, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.