W.S.R v. FCA US Llc

Opinion

PHILLIPS & PAOLICELLI, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 747 THIRD AVENUE 6TH FLOOR NEw YORK, NY 10017 (212) 388-5100 FAX: (212) 388-5200 April 18, 2024 fons MO ENDORSED Honorable Kenneth M. Karas United States District Judge USS. District Court, Southern District of New York 300 Quarropas St., Room 533 White Plains, NY 10601-4150 Re: W.S.R., An Infant By and Through His Father William Richardson, and William Richardson and Nicole Richardson, Individually, v. FCA US LLC, Docket Number: 7:18-CV-06961-KMK Dear Judge Karas, This office represents the Plaintiffs in the above-referenced action. Plaintiffs respectfully submit this Letter-Motion for Court approval of the settlement of this action against remaining- Defendant Yanfeng US Automotive Interior System II LLC in accordance with Local Rule 83.2, respecting the resolution of actions involving minor plaintiffs, and seeking the Court’s entry of an Infant Compromise Order. Submitted separately herewith under seal are the following materials for this Court’s review: the undersigned’s Affirmation in support of this application; exhibits in support of the application, including the Affidavits of William and Nicole Richardson, parents and natural guardians of the infant Plaintiff, in support of the application; and a Proposed Order for this Court’s consideration. Also submitted pursuant to this Court’s individual rules is a copy of the settlement agreement to be so-ordered to permit this Court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement. As an ICO has not yet been entered, the parties could not sign it. The parties therefore respectfully request that the Court allow the agreement to be signed and so-ordered after entry of the ICO. Plaintiffs and Defendant Yanfeng also respectfully request that this Court approve the filing of the documents under seal, as a condition of the settlement is its confidentiality. This Court previously permitted filing the FCA related ICO under seal by Order dated February 6, 2024. For all those reasons in this Court’s prior Order, as well as those in Plaintiffs’ February 5, 2024 letter (Doc. 381), the parties respectfully request that this Court approve the filing under seal.

{00084196}

Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Respectfully Submitted PHILLIPS & PAOLICELLI, LLP Yitzchak M. Fogel Yitzchak M. Fogel, Esq. ID No. YF7186 cc: All counsel (via ECF)

With respect to the proposed settlement, the Court has reviewed Plaintiffs’ and Yanfeng’s thorough and comprehensive submissions. Based on these submissions, the Court concludes that the settlement 1s fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the child. See D. v. City of New York, No. 14-CV-7131, 2016 WL 47345‘ at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 2016) (explaining that the analysis required under New York state law when assessing proposed infant compromise is “whether [the] settlement is fair and reasonable and in the infant plaintiffs best interests” and collecting cases (citation omitted)), report and recommendation adopted, 2016 WL 4735365 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 9, 2016); see also Edionwe v. Hussain, 777 N.Y.S.2d 520, 522 (App. Div. 2004) (same). Additionally, because Plaintiffs’ and Yanfeng’s submissions contain all of the information necessary to fully ass the proposed settlement, the Court further concludes that an infant compromise hearing is not necessary here. □□ FP. by Paino v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., No. 23-CV-5798, 2023 WL 6930677, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 2023) (“The Court is not required to conduct a hearing about a proposed [infant] settlement if ‘the necessary informati: is available from the documents and affidavits submitted in support of the motion.’” (quoting Aguilar v. Carlisle Carrier, LLC, No. 22-CV-628, 2023 WL 5241553, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. July 11, 2023), report and recommendation adopted (July 26, 2023)); D.H.S. by Serrano v. United States, No. 18-CV-983, 2020 WL 13552067, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. May 15, 2020) (“The court may hold a hearing to determine whether the terms of the settlement are fi but may also decide the motion based on the parties’ submissions without a hearing.”), report and recommendat adopted (Aug. 7, 2020); ME. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., No. 15-CV-1651, 2016 WL 4575786, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. □□ 1, 2016) (“The court may hold a hearing, but is not required to.”). Plaintiffs and Yanfeng have also jointly requested that the Court seal any infant compromise order, as well as th submissions in support of the proposed settlement. For the reasons set forth in this letter, the Court grants that jc request. See Hagen v. AMTRAK, No. 15-CV-1291, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113498, at *4 (N.D.N.Y. July 9, 201 (explaining—where “[t]he parties themselves ha[d] agreed upon confidentiality of the settlement sum as a mater term of their agreement”—that although “the public has an interest in knowing that the interests of the [infant- plaintiffs] have been protected, that the distribution of the settlement proceeds . . . is fair and proper, and that the monies earmarked for the [infant-plaintiffs] have been properly and prudently safeguarded (via structured annuit or otherwise), [the infant-plaintiffs and their father] have a stronger privacy interest in keeping the settlement su:

The Clerk of Court is respectfully asked to seal Dkt. Nos. 395 and 396, restricting access to those documents to only the Parties to this Action and the Court, and to terminate the pending motion, (see Dkt. No. 394). SO ORDERED 4/29/2024 {00084196}