Policarpo v. April Corp.
- Katharine Parker
- 1:21-cv-04210
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Policarpo v. April Corp., Judge Parker approved the parties’ Fair Labor Standards Act settlement and discontinued the action with prejudice and without costs.
The named plaintiffs, the proposed group of similarly situated workers described in the complaint, the defendants, and the plaintiffs’ counsel were affected by the settlement approval and dismissal. The opinion does not state the settlement amount or identify the members of any settlement group.
What happened
In Policarpo v. April Corp., Raul Policarpo and Natalio Ceballos brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law against April Corp., doing business as Terra Market, Blanca Gonzalez, and others. The parties reached an agreement in principle to resolve the case and submitted the proposed settlement for court approval.
The court reviewed the plaintiffs’ submissions and the settlement terms to decide whether the agreement was a reasonable compromise of the claims. It found the settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate, including its compensation for the plaintiffs’ lawyers. The court did not include the settlement terms in its order and did not retain jurisdiction to enforce the agreement.
Judge Katharine H. Parker approved the settlement and ordered that the action be discontinued with prejudice and without costs. She also directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
The detailed version
- Policarpo v. April Corp. · No. 1:21-cv-04210
- Katharine Parker
- Apr. 17, 2023
Background
Raul Policarpo and Natalio Ceballos sued April Corp., doing business as Terra Market, Blanca Gonzalez, and John Does #1-10. The opinion states that the action asserted claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The parties consented to the court’s authority to decide the case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
The parties reached an agreement in principle to resolve the action. Because the case included Fair Labor Standards Act claims, the proposed settlement was submitted to the court for judicial fairness review. The plaintiffs also submitted a letter explaining why they believed the settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate.
Court’s Analysis
The court reviewed the plaintiffs’ submissions and the proposed settlement agreement to determine whether the agreement represented a reasonable compromise of the claims. Considering the relevant circumstances and the representations in the plaintiffs’ letter, the court found that the settlement terms were fair, reasonable, and adequate both to address the plaintiffs’ claims and to compensate their counsel for legal fees.
The court stated that its order did not incorporate the settlement agreement’s terms. It also stated that the agreement did not provide that the court would retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement, and that the court had made no independent decision to retain such jurisdiction. Therefore, the approval order did not itself give the court continuing authority to enforce the agreement.
Disposition
The court approved the proposed settlement. As a result, it ordered that the action be discontinued with prejudice and without costs. The court also directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. Judge Katharine H. Parker signed the order on April 17, 2023.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.