Schur v. Strategic Financial Solutions, L.L.C.

District Court, S.D. New York

Schur v. Strategic Financial Solutions, L.L.C.

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DANIEL SCHUR,

Plaintiff,

-v- CIVIL ACTION NO.: 17 Civ. 546 (PGG) (SLC)

STRATEGIC FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS, L.L.C., ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT STRATEGIC CONSULTING, LLC, RYAN SASSON, and KIM CELIC,

Defendants.

SARAH L. CAVE, United States Magistrate Judge.

The parties in this wage-and-hour case under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) have consented to my jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73 for purposes of reviewing their proposed settlement (ECF No. 72), and have now submitted a joint Letter-Motion in support of settlement (ECF No. 73), proposed settlement agreement (ECF No. 73-1), and supplemental documentation supporting Plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees and costs (ECF No. 77), for review and approval under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc.,

796 F.3d 199

(2d Cir. 2015). Courts generally recognize a “strong presumption in favor of finding a settlement fair” in FLSA cases like this one, as courts are not in as good a position as the parties to determine the reasonableness of a FLSA settlement.” Souza v. 65 St. Marks Bistro, No. 15 Civ. 327 (JLC),

2015 WL 7271747

, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 6, 2015) (citation omitted). Having carefully reviewed the joint letter-motion in support of settlement, the Settlement Agreement and accompanying exhibits, and the supplemental documentation concerning Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs, the Court finds that all of the terms of the proposed settlement, including the allocation of attorneys’ fees and costs, appear to be fair and reasonable under the totality of the circumstances and in light of the factors enumerated in Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc.,

900 F. Supp. 2d 332, 335

(S.D.N.Y. 2012). Accordingly, the Court approves the settlement. This action is dismissed with prejudice and without costs except as may be stated in the Settlement Agreement. The Court will retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement. Any pending motions are moot. The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to mark ECF No. 73 as “granted,” and close this case.

Dated: New York, New York April 26, 2021 SO ORDERED. A L. ue United States Magistrate Judge

Reference

Status
Unknown