Alava v. Katz's Delicatessen of Houston St. Inc.
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:22-cv-07766
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Alava v. Katz’s Delicatessen, Judge Schofield approved the settlement, dismissed the action, and dismissed pending motions as moot.
Fanny Alava and the defendants, including Katz’s Delicatessen of Houston Street, Inc.; the action was dismissed, pending motions were dismissed as moot, and scheduled conferences and deadlines were canceled.
What happened
In Alava v. Katz’s Delicatessen of Houston Street, Inc., the parties asked the court to approve their proposed settlement. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims in detail.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield found the settlement fair and reasonable, considering the nature and scope of the claims and the risks and expenses of further litigation. The court did not award attorneys’ fees or costs beyond the amounts included in the settlement.
Judge Schofield dismissed the action in its entirety and without prejudice to restoring it to the court’s calendar if an application was made within 30 days. The court declined to retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement, dismissed pending motions as moot, and canceled all conferences and deadlines.
The detailed version
- Alava v. Katz's Delicatessen of Houston St. Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-07766
- Lorna Schofield
- Apr. 13, 2023
Background
The parties moved for approval of a proposed settlement. The order does not provide details about the underlying claims.
Settlement Approval
The court approved the settlement agreement as fair and reasonable. In making that determination, the court considered the nature and scope of the plaintiff’s claims and the risks and expenses associated with additional litigation. The court ordered that there would be no award of attorneys’ fees or costs beyond the amounts provided for in the settlement.
Disposition
The court ordered that the action be dismissed in its entirety and without prejudice to restoring the action to the court’s calendar, provided that an application to restore it was made within 30 days of the order. The court stated that an application to reopen filed more than 30 days after the order could be denied solely on that basis. The court declined to retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement and directed the parties to the appropriate forum if a breach occurred. Any pending motions were dismissed as moot, and all conferences and deadlines were canceled.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.