Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 24, 2024

Joaquin v. New York Athletic Club

Judge
Gabriel Gorenstein
Docket
1:23-cv-01235
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
FlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Joaquin v. New York Athletic Club, Judge Gorenstein approved a fair settlement, dismissed the Fair Labor Standards Act case with prejudice, and retained enforcement jurisdiction.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs and the New York Athletic Club are bound by the approved settlement; the case is dismissed with prejudice, and the court retains jurisdiction to enforce the agreement.

What happened

Franklin Joaquin and the other plaintiffs brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act against the New York Athletic Club. The parties agreed to resolve the case and submitted a proposed settlement to the court.

The court reviewed the settlement and found it fair and reasonable. It approved the settlement and dismissed the action with prejudice, meaning the case was ended and could not be brought again.

Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein also retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement. Any pending motions were declared moot, and the clerk was directed to close the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Joaquin v. New York Athletic Club · No. 1:23-cv-01235
Judge
Gabriel Gorenstein
Date
Sept. 24, 2024

Background

The plaintiffs asserted claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act. On July 19, 2024, the parties consented to have the matter decided by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). On September 23, 2024, they submitted a proposed settlement agreement.

Settlement Review

The court reviewed the proposed settlement under the standard described in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. The court found that the settlement was fair and reasonable and approved it.

Disposition

The action was dismissed with prejudice and without costs, except as provided in the settlement agreement. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement. Any pending motions were declared moot, and the clerk was requested to 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.