Johnson v. Relish BD LLC
- Katharine Parker
- 1:23-cv-05319
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Johnson v. Relish BD LLC, Judge Parker approved a Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law settlement and discontinued the action with prejudice and without costs.
Joseph Johnson, Relish BD LLC, and Johnson’s counsel were affected: the settlement was approved, the action was discontinued with prejudice and without costs, and the case was closed.
What happened
In Johnson v. Relish BD LLC, Joseph Johnson sued Relish BD LLC under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The parties reached an agreement in principle to resolve the action and asked the court to approve it.
The court found that the proposed settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate to address Johnson’s claims and compensate his lawyer for legal fees. The court did not include the settlement’s terms in its order and did not retain jurisdiction to enforce the agreement.
Judge Katharine H. Parker approved the settlement, discontinued the action with prejudice and without costs, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. Relish BD LLC · No. 1:23-cv-05319
- Katharine Parker
- Nov. 29, 2023
Background
Joseph Johnson brought this action against Relish BD LLC under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The parties consented to the court’s authority to decide the case and, after reaching an agreement in principle, submitted a proposed settlement for judicial approval.
Settlement Review
Because the action included claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the court reviewed the proposed settlement for fairness. After considering Johnson’s written explanation, the agreement’s terms, the relevant circumstances, and the strengths and weaknesses of the parties’ positions, the court found that the settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate. The court also found that it reasonably compensated Johnson’s counsel for legal fees and approved the agreement.
Jurisdiction and Disposition
The order did not incorporate the settlement’s terms. It also did not state that the court would retain jurisdiction to enforce the agreement, and the court made no independent decision to retain such jurisdiction. The court stated that its approval of the settlement should not be understood as retaining enforcement jurisdiction.
As a result of the settlement approval, the court ordered that the action be discontinued with prejudice and without costs. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case on the court’s docket.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.