Guerra v. J.A.E.-L.A.R. Restaurant Corp
Guerra v. J.A.E.-L.A.R. Restaurant Corp
Trial Court Opinion
USDC SDNY DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRON SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ICALLY FIL! DATE FILED: 08/18/2020 IGNACIO GUERRA, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, 19-CV-4144 (KHP)
. ORDER OF DISMISSAL -against- J.A.E. RESTAURANT CORP. d/b/a CARIDAD RESTAURANT, Defendant/ Counterclaim Plaintiff -and- AMAURY ESPINAL, AMIN ESPINAL, and LAURA RODRIGUEZ, Defendants. +--+ ------ 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. (Dkt. 18.) This Court has reviewed Plaintiff's 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 Plaintiff's letter, the terms of the proposed settlement agreement, 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 Plaintiffs counsel for their legal fees, and the agreement is therefore approved. 2. In accordance with Paragraph 18 of the parties’ proposed settlement agreement (see Dkt. 18-1, 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, provided, however, that, within 30 days of the date of this Order, if any aspect of written documentation of the settlement is not completed, then Plaintiff may apply by letter for the restoration of the action to the active calendar of the Court. 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case on the Docket of the Court. Dated: New York, New York August 18, 2020 SO ORDERED Fs, Pgs. Kethaure Hf franks KATHARINE H. PARKER United States Magistrate Judge Copies to: All counsel (via ECF)
Reference
- Status
- Unknown