Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 19, 2023

Banton v. United Cerebral Palsy Associations Of New York State, Inc.

Judge
Gabriel Gorenstein
Docket
1:22-cv-08338
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
FlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Banton v. United Cerebral, Judge Gorenstein approved the parties’ fair and reasonable settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice.

Who this affects

The dismissal and settlement approval affect Shackeema Banton and United Cerebral Palsy Associations of New York State, Inc.; the court also retained jurisdiction to enforce their settlement agreement.

What happened

In Banton v. United Cerebral Palsy Associations Of New York State, Inc., the parties submitted a proposed settlement resolving claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The court reviewed the settlement and found it fair and reasonable. It approved the settlement, dismissed the action with prejudice and without costs except as provided in the settlement agreement, and retained authority to enforce the agreement.

Judge Gorenstein also ruled that any pending motions were moot and directed the Clerk to close the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Banton v. United Cerebral Palsy Associations Of New York State, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-08338
Judge
Gabriel Gorenstein
Date
Jan. 19, 2023

Background

Shackeema Banton brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act against United Cerebral Palsy Associations of New York State, Inc. The parties consented to have the matter decided by United States Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). They submitted a proposed settlement agreement.

Court’s Analysis

The court reviewed the proposed settlement under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. and found that the agreement was fair and reasonable. The opinion does not provide further details about the claims or the settlement’s terms.

Ruling

The court approved the settlement. It dismissed the action with prejudice and without costs except as may be stated in the settlement agreement. The court retained jurisdiction, meaning authority, to enforce the settlement agreement. It ruled that any pending motions were moot and directed the Clerk 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.