Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 20, 2023

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

Judge
Gabriel Gorenstein
Docket
1:22-cv-04445
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
FlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Cox v. New York Cerebral Palsy Associations, Judge Gorenstein approved the parties’ settlement and dismissed the Fair Labor Standards Act case.

Who this affects

Audrey Cox and New York Cerebral Palsy Associations of New York State, Inc.; the approved settlement ended the Fair Labor Standards Act action.

What happened

Audrey Cox sued New York Cerebral Palsy Associations of New York State, Inc. in a case involving claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The parties agreed to let Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein decide the matter and submitted a proposed settlement.

The court reviewed the settlement for fairness and reasonableness and approved it. The opinion does not describe the settlement’s specific terms.

Judge Gorenstein dismissed the action with prejudice and without costs except as provided in the settlement agreement. He retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement, 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
Cox v. United Cerebral Palsy Associations Of New York State, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-04445
Judge
Gabriel Gorenstein
Date
Jan. 20, 2023

Background

The case involved claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act. On January 19, 2023, the court noted that the parties had consented to have the matter decided by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The parties submitted a proposed settlement agreement in a January 18, 2023 filing, identified as Docket No. 22.

Settlement Review

The court reviewed the proposed settlement under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., as required for review of certain Fair Labor Standards Act settlements. The court found the agreement fair and reasonable and approved the settlement. The opinion does not state the settlement’s terms.

Disposition

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