USDC SDNY DOCUMENT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC £: DATE FILED: 9/11/2025 ROSARINA ROSARIO, Plaintiff, ORDER APPROVING -v- SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSING CASE MAJESTIC RESTAURANT INC, ET AL., 23-CV-11042 (HJR) Defendants.

HENRY J. RICARDO, United States Magistrate Judge. This case is an action for damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act,

et seg. CFLSA”), which is before this Court on the consent of the parties pursuant to

(c). The Court has received the parties’ joint letter request that the Court approve their Settlement Agreement, a fully executed copy of which was submitted on June 30, 2025. ECF Nos. 36, 36-1. The Court also has a copy of the retainer agreement between Plaintiff and his counsel, a copy of an invoice for service on Defendants, and a copy of the Settlement Agreement translated to Spanish. ECF Nos. 36-2, 36-3, 38-1. A federal court is obligated to determine whether settlement of an FLSA case under the court’s consideration is fair and reasonable and the subject of an arm’s length negotiation, not an employer’s overreaching. See Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House,

(2d Cir. 2015). The Court has carefully reviewed the Settlement Agreement as well as the parties’ letter. The Court has taken into account, without limitation, prior

proceedings in this action; the attendant risks, burdens, and costs associated with continuing the action; the range of possible recovery; whether the Settlement Agreement is the product of arm’s length bargaining between experienced counsel or parties; the amount of attorney’s fees; and the possibility of fraud or collusion. Among other attributes of the Settlement Agreement, there are no confidentiality restrictions; the release is narrowly tailored to wage and hour claims; and the attorneys’ fees are within a fair, reasonable, and acceptable range. Considering all the circumstances, the Court finds that the Settlement Agreement is fair and reasonable, and it is hereby approved. This case, having resolved by settlement, is hereby dismissed and discontinued in its entirety, with prejudice, without costs or fees to any party, except as provided for in the Settlement Agreement. At the parties’ request, see Settlement Agreement § 11, the Court will retain jurisdiction for the limited purpose of enforcing the Settlement Agreement. The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to terminate all motions and deadlines, and to close this case. SO ORDERED. Dated: September 11, 2025 New York, New York Che He J. Ricard United States Magistrate Judge