Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 14, 2022

Howell v. 33 Union Square West, Inc.

Judge
James Oetken
Docket
1:22-cv-05668
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
FlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Howell v. 33 Union Square West, Judge Oetken approved the settlement and dismissed the FLSA case with prejudice.

Who this affects

Tyrone Howell and the defendants in the action are affected by the approved settlement and the dismissal with prejudice. The court retained limited authority to resolve disputes arising from the settlement.

What happened

In Howell v. 33 Union Square West, the parties told the court they had settled Tyrone Howell’s Fair Labor Standards Act case and asked the court to approve their agreement.

The agreement provided for a $15,000 settlement for Howell’s claims. One-third of that amount would go toward attorney’s fees, plus costs. The court found the proposed settlement fair and reasonable.

Judge Oetken approved the settlement, dismissed the case with prejudice, and retained jurisdiction only to resolve disputes arising from the settlement agreement. The clerk was directed to close the case.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Howell v. 33 Union Square West, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-05668
Judge
James Oetken
Date
Dec. 14, 2022

Background

The parties notified the court that they had reached a settlement in Tyrone Howell’s Fair Labor Standards Act case. They submitted a proposed settlement for court approval.

Settlement Terms

The proposed agreement allocated $15,000 to Howell in connection with his Fair Labor Standards Act claims. One-third of the settlement amount would be collected as attorney’s fees, plus costs.

Ruling

The court reviewed the proposed settlement and found it fair and reasonable under the standard requiring court review of Fair Labor Standards Act settlements. Judge Oetken approved the proposed settlement at Docket Number 17 and dismissed the case with prejudice. The court retained jurisdiction solely to resolve disputes arising from the settlement agreement and the settlement of the action. The clerk was directed to close the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.