Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 14, 2024

Rambert v. Silvercup Scaffolding I LLC

Judge
Katharine Parker
Docket
1:23-cv-00437
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
FlsaEmploymentCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Rambert v. Silvercup Scaffolding I LLC, Judge Parker approved the wage settlement, retained enforcement jurisdiction, and discontinued the action with prejudice and without costs.

Who this affects

Carlton Rambert, Silvercup Scaffolding I LLC, the other defendants, and their attorneys are affected by the approved settlement and the case’s discontinuance with prejudice and without costs.

What happened

Rambert sued Silvercup Scaffolding I LLC and others under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The parties reached an agreement in principle after mediation and asked the court to review and approve it.

Judge Parker reviewed the proposed agreement and the parties’ explanation of why it was fair. The court found that the settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate to address Rambert’s claims and compensate his lawyer for legal fees.

The court approved the settlement, retained jurisdiction to enforce it if necessary, and discontinued the action with prejudice and without costs. Judge Parker also directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Rambert v. Silvercup Scaffolding I LLC · No. 1:23-cv-00437
Judge
Katharine Parker
Date
Feb. 14, 2024

Background

Carlton Rambert brought this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage-and-hour law, and the New York Labor Law. The parties consented to have the magistrate judge decide the matter. After reaching an agreement in principle through mediation in the Court’s mediation program, they submitted a proposed settlement agreement for judicial approval.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that settlements of Fair Labor Standards Act claims require judicial review for fairness. After reviewing the parties’ submissions, including their letter explaining why the agreement was fair, reasonable, and adequate, and considering the relevant circumstances, the court found that the settlement reasonably addressed Rambert’s claims and compensated his counsel for legal fees.

Ruling

The court approved the proposed settlement agreement. It retained jurisdiction to enforce the agreement if necessary. The court also ordered that the action be discontinued with prejudice and without costs and directed the Clerk of Court 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.