Thermidor et al v. Alteration Group of NY, LLC et al

Filing 45

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. It is hereby ORDERED that: 1. The Court finds that the terms of the proposed settlement agreement are fair, reasonable, and adequate, both to redress Plaintiff's claims in this action and to compensate Plaintiff's counse l for their legal fees, and the agreement is therefore approved. 2. As the parties have requested that the Court retain jurisdiction for the purpose of enforcing the parties' settlement agreement, this Court will retain jurisdiction over this ac tion for that purpose. 3. As a result of the Court's approval of the parties' executed settlement agreement, this action is hereby discontinued with prejudice and without costs or fees to any party. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case on the Docket of the Court. So ordered. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Debra C. Freeman on 7/24/2020). Copies to: All counsel (via ECF). (rjm)

Case 1:19-cv-04572-DCF Document 45 Filed 07/24/20 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
JEAN M. THERMIDOR, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,

19cv04572 (DF)
ORDER OF
DISMISSAL

-againstALTERATION GROUP OF NY, LLC (d/b/a
ALTERATION SPECIALISTS OF NEW YORK), et al.,
Defendants.
DEBRA FREEMAN, United States Magistrate Judge:
In this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, which is
before this Court on the consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties, having
reached an agreement in principle to resolve the action, have placed their proposed settlement
agreement before the Court for approval. See Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d
1999 (2d Cir. 2015) (requiring judicial fairness review of FLSA settlements). The parties have
also submitted a letter to the Court, explaining why they believe the proposed settlement
agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate (Dkt. 39), and have further submitted a supplemental
letter, clarifying that they are requesting that the Court retain jurisdiction over the action for the
purpose of enforcing the settlement agreement (Dkt. 42). The Court has reviewed the parties’
submissions in order to determine whether the proposed agreement (Dkt. 39-1) represents a
reasonable compromise of the claims asserted in this action, and, in light of the totality of the
relevant circumstances, including the representations made in the parties’ letters, the terms of the
proposed settlement agreement, and this Court’s own familiarity with the strengths and
weaknesses of the parties’ positions (as became evident during an arms-length settlement
mediation conducted by this Court), it is hereby ORDERED that:

Case 1:19-cv-04572-DCF Document 45 Filed 07/24/20 Page 2 of 2

1.

The Court finds that the terms of the proposed settlement agreement are fair,

reasonable, and adequate, both to redress Plaintiff’s claims in this action and to compensate
Plaintiff’s counsel for their legal fees, and the agreement is therefore approved.
2.

As the parties have requested that the Court retain jurisdiction for the purpose of

enforcing the parties’ settlement agreement, this Court will retain jurisdiction over this action for
that purpose.
3.

As a result of the Court’s approval of the parties’ executed settlement agreement,

this action is hereby discontinued with prejudice and without costs or fees to any party. The
Clerk of Court is directed to close this case on the Docket of the Court.
Dated: New York, New York
July 24, 2020
SO ORDERED

________________________________
DEBRA FREEMAN
United States Magistrate Judge
Copies to:
All counsel (via ECF)

2