Colon v. Alpha Recycling, Inc.
- Katharine Parker
- 1:21-cv-08864
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Colon v. Alpha Recycling, Judge Parker approved the FLSA settlement and discontinued the action with prejudice and without costs.
The plaintiff, the defendants, and the plaintiff’s counsel were affected: the settlement was approved, the action was discontinued with prejudice and without costs, and the court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement if necessary.
What happened
In Walder Antonio Guance Colon v. Alpha Recycling, Inc. et al., the plaintiff brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The parties reached an agreement in principle to resolve the case and submitted their proposed settlement for court approval.
Judge Parker reviewed the plaintiff’s explanation, the settlement’s terms, and the circumstances of the case to decide whether the agreement was fair, reasonable, and adequate. The opinion does not state the settlement amount or describe the specific payment terms.
The court approved the settlement, found that it fairly addressed the plaintiff’s claims and compensated the plaintiff’s counsel, and retained jurisdiction to enforce the agreement if needed. Judge Parker discontinued the action with prejudice and without costs and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
The detailed version
- Colon v. Alpha Recycling, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-08864
- Katharine Parker
- Feb. 16, 2022
Background
The plaintiff brought this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. 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.
Settlement Review
The court explained that settlements of Fair Labor Standards Act claims require judicial fairness review. It reviewed the plaintiff’s letter supporting the settlement, the proposed agreement, and the relevant circumstances to determine whether the agreement was a reasonable compromise of the claims. The opinion does not provide the settlement amount or the agreement’s specific financial terms.
Ruling
The court found the proposed settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate both to address the plaintiff’s claims and to compensate the plaintiff’s counsel for legal fees. It approved the agreement, retained jurisdiction to enforce it if necessary, and discontinued the action with prejudice and without costs. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.