Opinion
19 CV 8169 (VB)
03-28-2022
ROY PILOT, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF YONKERS, Defendant.
ORDER
Vincent L. Briccetti United States District Judge
On March 25, 2022, the parties in this Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) case filed a motion for settlement approval and attached settlement agreement (Doc. #81), as required by Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2015).
In reviewing the proposed settlement agreement, the Court has considered the following factors:
(i) the parties' position as to the proper valuation of plaintiff s claims;
(ii) the risks and costs of continuing to litigate;
(iii) plaintiff is represented by counsel;
(iv) plaintiff no longer works for defendant;
(v) the settlement agreement was arrived at with the able assistance of a magistrate judge;
(vi) the settlement agreement does not contain a confidentiality clause;
(vii) the settlement agreement does not contain a non-disparagement clause;
(viii) the Court's decision on the parties' summary judgment motions (Doc. #64), which limited the recovery available to plaintiff;
(ix) there is a bona fide dispute regarding the number of overtime hours plaintiff worked and the wages paid to plaintiffs;
(x) the parties desire to resolve this action and avoid the costs and uncertainty associated with drawn-out litigation; and
(xi) the release set forth in paragraph 4 of the settlement agreement is limited to wage-and-hour claims arising out of the facts of the instant litigation.1
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds the settlement agreement is fair and reasonable, and the product of arm's-length negotiation, not fraud or collusion.
Additionally, the Court finds the attorneys' fees, which are being paid principally to plaintiff as reimbursement for fees and expenses he has already paid to his attorney, and partially to plaintiffs attorney for fees billed to plaintiff but not yet paid, to be fair and reasonable under the circumstances.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the parties' settlement agreement (Doc. #81) is APPROVED.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this action is dismissed without costs, and without prejudice to the right to restore the action to the Court's calendar, provided the application to restore the action is made by no later than May 12, 2022. To be clear, any application to restore the action must be filed by May 12, 2022, and any application to restore the action filed thereafter may be denied solely on the basis that it is untimely.
The Clerk is instructed to close this case.
SO ORDERED: 2