Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 8, 2023

Ingram v. International Asbestos Removal, Inc.

Judge
James Cott
Docket
1:22-cv-10149
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
FlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

Ingram v. International Asbestos Removal, Judge Cott dismissed the settled case, allowing reopening within 45 days if settlement was not completed.

Who this affects

The plaintiff and defendants in the action: Obreight Ingram, International Asbestos Removal, Inc., Chirstopher Grando, Karen Grando, and Thomas Hughes.

What happened

In Ingram v. International Asbestos Removal, Inc., the parties reached a settlement in principle after a settlement conference and were represented by experienced lawyers. They also agreed that Judge Cott could handle the case.

The parties filed a stipulation withdrawing and dismissing the plaintiff’s Fair Labor Standards Act claim with prejudice. The court reviewed and approved that stipulation.

Judge Cott dismissed and closed the action without costs, while allowing the parties to reopen it within 45 days if the settlement was not completed. Any pending motions were declared moot.

The detailed version

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

Case
Ingram v. International Asbestos Removal, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-10149
Judge
James Cott
Date
Dec. 8, 2023

Background

The parties appeared at a settlement conference on November 16, 2023, were represented by experienced counsel, and reached a settlement in principle. They later consented to Judge Cott’s jurisdiction over the case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The opinion states that the complaint alleged 11 causes of action and that the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claim was the eighth cause of action.

FLSA Claim

The plaintiff voluntarily withdrew the FLSA claim under a party stipulation. The court reviewed and approved the stipulation under the required standards for reviewing FLSA settlements and ordered it approved. That claim was dismissed with prejudice.

Ruling

Judge Cott ordered that the action be dismissed and discontinued without costs, but without prejudice to reopening it within 45 days of the order if the settlement was not completed. Any request to reopen filed after that deadline could be denied solely because it was late. If the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement, they had to submit the agreement within the same 45-day period for the court to approve and formally order. The court declared any pending motions moot and directed the Clerk to close the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.