Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 5, 2024

Cordero v. The Table at Redeye Inc.

Judge
Gabriel Gorenstein
Docket
1:24-cv-00144
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
FlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Cordero v. The Table at Redeye Inc., Judge Gorenstein approved the parties’ fair settlement and dismissed the Fair Labor Standards Act case with prejudice.

Who this affects

The parties to the Fair Labor Standards Act case are affected by the approved settlement and the dismissal with prejudice. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement.

What happened

In Cordero v. The Table at Redeye Inc., the parties submitted a proposed settlement resolving claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The court reviewed the agreement and found it fair and reasonable. It approved the settlement, dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs except as provided in the agreement, and stated that it would retain authority to enforce the settlement.

Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein also ruled that any pending motions were moot and directed the Clerk to close the case.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Cordero v. The Table at Redeye Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-00144
Judge
Gabriel Gorenstein
Date
Aug. 5, 2024

Background

The case included claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act. On June 17, 2024, the parties consented to have the matter decided by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The parties later submitted a proposed settlement agreement.

Settlement Review

The court reviewed the proposed settlement under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., which the opinion cited as requiring review of certain Fair Labor Standards Act settlements. The court found the agreement fair and reasonable and approved it.

Disposition

The action was dismissed with prejudice and without costs, except as may be stated in the settlement agreement. The court retained jurisdiction, meaning authority, to enforce the settlement agreement. The court also ruled that any pending motions were moot and requested that the Clerk close the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.