Rodriguez et al v. Fordham Bedford Housing Company et al

Filing 53

ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND CLOSING CASE granting 52 Letter Motion to Seal. Accordingly, the Court approves the settlement and will retain jurisdiction for purposes of enforcement of the settlement agreement. The Court also grants the motion to seal because any right of public access to the settlement agreement is outweighed by countervailing privacy concerns consistent with the standard set forth in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) and its progeny. The Cle rk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 52, and to seal the documents that were publicly filed at ECF No. 52-1 and ECF No. 52-2. This case having settled, the Clerk of the Court is also respectfully directed to close this case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker on 11/14/2023) (tg)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
11/14/2023

GLORIMAR RODRIGUEZ, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
-againstFORDHAM BEDFORD HOUSING COMPANY, et al.,

ORDER APPROVING
SETTLEMENT AND
CLOSING CASE
1:22-cv-6974 (KHP)

Defendants.
KATHARINE H. PARKER, United States Magistrate Judge.
The Court has carefully reviewed the submissions at ECF No. 52 seeking approval of the
settlement agreement and seeking permission to file the settlement agreement and motion for
approval of the settlement under seal. Insofar as the settlement settles the claims of all
plaintiffs, including infant plaintiffs, the Court has reviewed the settlement to determine
whether it is in the infant’s best interests and any attorneys’ fees and costs are reasonable and
finds that the settlement is in fact fair, reasonable and in the infant plaintiffs’ interests. See D.J.
ex rel. Roberts v. City of New York, 2012 WL 5431034, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 16, 2012); Local Civ. R.
83.2. Nothing about the settlement or the process by which it was reached was collusive;
plaintiffs’ counsel is experienced and a zealous advocate; and there has been sufficient
discovery to inform the settlement. Further, the terms of the settlement are adequate in light
of the risks, expenses, and likely rewards of litigation. Accordingly, the Court approves the
settlement and will retain jurisdiction for purposes of enforcement of the settlement
agreement.

The Court also grants the motion to seal because any right of public access to the
settlement agreement is outweighed by countervailing privacy concerns consistent with the
standard set forth in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) and its
progeny.
The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 52,
and to seal the documents that were publicly filed at ECF No. 52-1 and ECF No. 52-2. This
case having settled, the Clerk of the Court is also respectfully directed to close this case.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: New York, New York
November 14, 2023

________________________________
KATHARINE H. PARKER
United States Magistrate Judge

2