Plumitallo v. Unum Group
- Katharine Parker
- 1:22-cv-01391
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Plumitallo v. Unum Group, Judge Parker approved the FLSA settlement, discontinued the action with prejudice and without costs, and closed the case.
Stephen Plumitallo, the others similarly situated whom he sought to represent, Unum Group, and Plumitallo’s counsel were affected by the settlement approval and closure of the action.
What happened
In Plumitallo v. Unum Group, Stephen Plumitallo brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated. The parties reached an agreement in principle and asked the court to approve their proposed settlement.
The court reviewed the agreement and the parties’ explanation of why it was fair, reasonable, and adequate. It approved the settlement, including compensation for the plaintiff’s claims and payment of his lawyers’ fees. The court did not retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement because the order did not include the settlement’s terms and did not expressly retain enforcement jurisdiction.
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
- Plumitallo v. Unum Group · No. 1:22-cv-01391
- Katharine Parker
- July 12, 2022
Background
Stephen Plumitallo sued Unum Group under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated. The parties consented to the authority of a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). After reaching an agreement in principle, they submitted a proposed settlement agreement and a letter explaining why they believed the agreement was fair, reasonable, and adequate.
Settlement Review
Because the case included Fair Labor Standards Act claims, the court reviewed the proposed settlement for fairness. The court considered the parties’ submissions, the settlement terms, the circumstances of the parties’ settlement mediation, and the strengths and weaknesses of their positions. The court found that the agreement was fair, reasonable, and adequate both to address Plumitallo’s claims and to compensate his counsel for legal fees. The court therefore approved the proposed settlement.
Jurisdiction and Disposition
The court stated that its order did not incorporate the settlement’s terms. It also found that the agreement did not provide that the court would retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement, and the court did not independently retain that jurisdiction. The action was discontinued with prejudice and without costs, and the Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.