Pujols v. RTS Solutionz, Inc.

Opinion

USDC SDNY SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOCUMENT eX ELECTRONICALLY FILED FAUSTINO PUJOLS, DOC DATE FILED;_9/9/2023 Plaintiffs, . ORDER -against- — 20-CV-10373 (KHP) RTS SOLUTIONZ, INC a/k/a SOLUTIONZ , INC. and as successor to Real Time Services, Inc., BILL WARNICK, and KIRK R. FERNANDEZ, Defendants. +--+ ----X FAUSTINO PUJOLS, Plaintiffs, 22-CV-5455 (KHP) -against- RTS SOLUTIONZ, INC a/k/a SOLUTIONZ , INC. and as successor to Real Time Services, Inc., BILL WARNICK, JILL ARMAND, and KYLEE CHEENEY, Defendants. o-oo X KATHARINE H. PARKER, 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 this Court for approval. See Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 1999 (2d Cir. 2015) (requiring judicial fairness review of FLSA settlements). Plaintiff has also submitted a letter detailing why they believe the proposed settlement agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. (20-cv-10373, ECF No. 93; 22-cv-5455, ECF No. 71.) This Court has reviewed Plaintiffs submissions in order to determine whether the

proposed agreement 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 Plaintiffs letter, the terms of the proposed settlement agreement, and this Court’s own familiarity with the strengths and weaknesses of the parties’ positions, 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 counsel for their legal fees, and the agreement is therefore approved. 2. In accordance with the parties’ request, this Court will retain jurisdiction over this matter for the purpose of enforcing the settlement agreement, if necessary. 3. As a result of the Court’s approval of the parties’ proposed settlement, this action is hereby discontinued with prejudice and without costs. 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case on the Docket of the Court. Dated: New York, New York May 9, 2023 SO ORDERED Ket: hawt H ahr KATHARINE H. PARKER United States Magistrate Judge