Mayahua Cuahua v. Living Thai Corp
- Katharine Parker
- 1:20-cv-03713
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Mayahua Cuahua v. Living Thai Corp, Judge Parker approved a settlement of wage claims under federal law and New York Labor Law, discontinuing the action with prejudice.
The named plaintiffs, others similarly situated, the defendants, and plaintiffs’ counsel are affected. The action was discontinued with prejudice and without costs, and the court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement if necessary.
What happened
Gaspar Mayahua Cuahua and Javier Zopiyactle Cuahua brought this case individually and for others similarly situated against Living Thail Corp doing business as Living Thai Cuisine, et al. The claims arose under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The parties reached an agreement in principle and submitted a revised settlement for court approval.
The court reviewed the proposed settlement, the plaintiffs’ explanation of why it was fair, and the strengths and weaknesses of the parties’ positions. It found the agreement fair, reasonable, and adequate to address the plaintiffs’ claims and compensate their lawyers for legal fees.
Judge Katharine H. Parker approved the settlement, retained jurisdiction to enforce it if necessary, and ordered that the action be discontinued with prejudice and without costs. The court directed the Clerk to adjourn all conferences and close the case.
The detailed version
- Mayahua Cuahua v. Living Thai Corp · No. 1:20-cv-03713
- Katharine Parker
- Oct. 3, 2024
Background
Gaspar Mayahua Cuahua and Javier Zopiyactle Cuahua sued individually and on behalf of others similarly situated. The defendants are identified in the opinion’s caption as Living Thail Corp doing business as Living Thai Cuisine, et al. The action asserted claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage-and-hour law, and the New York Labor Law. The parties consented to the court’s authority to decide the case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
The parties reached an agreement in principle to resolve the action and submitted a revised proposed settlement agreement for judicial approval. The plaintiffs also submitted a letter explaining why they believed the agreement was fair, reasonable, and adequate. The court reviewed those submissions, the agreement’s terms, the relevant circumstances, and its own familiarity with the strengths and weaknesses of the parties’ positions.
Ruling
The court found that the proposed settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate both to redress the plaintiffs’ claims and to compensate plaintiffs’ counsel for legal fees. It therefore approved the agreement.
At the parties’ request, the court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement if necessary. Because of the settlement approval, the court ordered that the action be discontinued with prejudice and without costs. It also directed the Clerk of Court to adjourn all conferences and close the case on the docket.
Effect of the Order
The settlement was approved and the action was closed with prejudice. The opinion does not state the settlement amount or describe how the settlement proceeds were allocated.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.