Osorio v. PJ's Lawn Service Inc.
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:21-cv-06413
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Osorio v. PJ’s Lawn Service, Judge Engelmayer declined to approve an unsigned wage settlement but gave the parties three possible next steps.
The parties to the wage-law case—Noe Gregorio Aquino Osorio, PJ’s Lawn Service Inc., and Peter Creegan—and Osorio’s law firm, The Samuel Law Firm.
What happened
In Osorio v. PJ’s Lawn Service Inc., the parties asked the court to approve a proposed settlement of the plaintiff’s federal and New York wage-law claims. The agreement would have paid Noe Gregorio Aquino Osorio $16,286.66 and his law firm $8,713.34 in fees and costs, for a total settlement of $25,000.
The court found the settlement legally satisfactory and substantively reasonable, but the agreement did not contain the parties’ signatures. Because of that defect, the court would not approve the agreement in its current form.
Judge Engelmayer declined to approve the agreement at that time. He allowed the parties to file a signed revised agreement, jointly abandon settlement and continue litigating, or stipulate to dismiss the case without prejudice.
The detailed version
- Osorio v. PJ's Lawn Service Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-06413
- Paul Engelmayer
- Dec. 19, 2022
Background
This action asserted claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage law, and New York Labor Law. On December 14, 2022, the parties asked the court to approve a proposed settlement agreement. Under the agreement, defendants PJ’s Lawn Service Inc. and Peter Creegan would pay plaintiff Noe Gregorio Aquino Osorio $16,286.66. The agreement also provided for $8,713.34 in fees and costs to Osorio’s law firm, The Samuel Law Firm, making the total settlement $25,000.
Court’s Analysis
The court stated that the settlement was substantively reasonable and achieved through procedurally fair means. It nevertheless found one deficiency: the agreement included spaces for the parties’ signatures but lacked the signatures of the plaintiff and defendants. The court stated that it would not approve the settlement agreement without those signatures.
Ruling and Options
The court declined to approve the agreement at that time. It identified three possible paths: the parties could file a revised agreement consistent with the court’s ruling by December 29, 2022, after which the court was prepared to approve the settlement; they could jointly notify the court that they intended to abandon settlement and continue litigating, leading to a conference about possible summary-judgment motions or a trial date; or they could stipulate to dismissal of the case without prejudice. The court noted that, under the case law it cited, settlements accompanying such a dismissal do not require court approval.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.