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

Brown v. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center

Judge
Stewart Aaron
Docket
1:22-cv-10144
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
FlsaFee PetitionCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Brown v. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Judge Aaron approved the settlement and dismissed the action with prejudice.

Who this affects

Claudine Brown and Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center; the approved settlement ended Brown’s Fair Labor Standards Act action and governed the parties’ obligations under the agreement.

What happened

Brown v. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center involved claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The parties told the court they had reached a settlement covering all issues and submitted the agreement for review.

The court found the settlement fair and reasonable in light of Brown’s individual claims, the risks of further litigation, and the related expenses. It also approved a mutual general release and attorney’s fees of $17,339, plus $482 in costs.

Judge Stewart D. Aaron approved the settlement, dismissed the action with prejudice and without costs except as provided in the settlement agreement, retained jurisdiction to enforce the agreement, and directed the clerk to close the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Brown v. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center · No. 1:22-cv-10144
Judge
Stewart Aaron
Date
Oct. 20, 2023

Background

Claudine Brown brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act against Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. On September 4, 2023, the parties reported that they had reached a settlement in principle on all issues. The court then directed them to submit the settlement agreement and explain why it was fair and reasonable. The parties submitted the proposed agreement and supporting papers on October 19, 2023.

Court’s Analysis

The court found the settlement fair and reasonable based on the nature and scope of Brown’s individual claims and the risks and expenses of continuing the litigation. The agreement included a mutual general release, a provision that courts generally disfavor. The court found the release acceptable because Brown no longer worked for the defendant and had been represented by experienced counsel.

Brown also sought approval of $17,339 in attorney’s fees, described as one-third of the total settlement amount, and $482 in costs. The court found the requested fees fair and reasonable because courts in the district typically approve fees equal to one-third of the total recovery. The court stated that it was not making any findings about the reasonableness of counsel’s hourly rates.

Ruling

Judge Stewart D. Aaron approved the settlement. The action was dismissed with prejudice and without costs except as stated in the settlement agreement. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement and directed the clerk to close the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-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.