Rodriguez Ramos v. Jay Global Enterprises, Inc.
- Katharine Parker
- 1:21-cv-08617
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Rodriguez Ramos v. Jay Global Enterprises, Judge Parker approved the parties’ settlement and discontinued the action with prejudice and without costs.
The plaintiff, the defendants, and the plaintiff’s counsel were affected by approval of the settlement and closure of the action. The order also clarified that the court did not retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement.
What happened
Rodriguez Ramos v. Jay Global Enterprises, Inc. involved claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The parties reached an agreement in principle and submitted a proposed settlement for court approval.
The court reviewed the proposed agreement, the plaintiff’s explanation of why it was fair, and the circumstances of an arm’s-length mediation. The opinion does not disclose the settlement amount or other specific terms.
Judge Katharine H. Parker found the settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate, approved it, and discontinued the action with prejudice and without costs. The court did not incorporate the settlement’s terms into the order or retain jurisdiction to enforce the agreement, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
The detailed version
- Rodriguez Ramos v. Jay Global Enterprises, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-08617
- Katharine Parker
- June 23, 2022
Background
The plaintiff brought this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The parties consented to the magistrate judge’s authority to decide the case 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 submission supporting the settlement, the proposed agreement, and the relevant circumstances, including an arm’s-length mediation with an experienced Southern District of New York mediator. The opinion does not state the settlement amount or describe the agreement’s specific financial terms.
Ruling and disposition
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. It therefore approved the agreement.
The order did not incorporate the settlement’s terms. The agreement also did not provide that the court would retain jurisdiction to enforce it, and the court made no independent determination to retain such jurisdiction. The court stated that its approval should not be understood as retaining enforcement jurisdiction.
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 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.