Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 14, 2024

Sanchez v. Milea Truck Sales Corp.

Judge
Katharine Parker
Docket
1:24-cv-04984
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
FlsaEmploymentCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Sanchez v. Milea Truck Sales Corp., Judge Parker approved the FLSA settlement, retained enforcement jurisdiction, and discontinued the action with prejudice and without costs.

Who this affects

Luis A. Sanchez, the defendants, and Sanchez’s counsel are affected by the approved settlement; the case is closed, subject to the court’s retained jurisdiction to enforce the agreement if necessary.

What happened

Luis A. Sanchez sued Milea Truck Sales Corp., Milea Leasing Corp., MTS Realty Corp., and Barry Milea under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The parties reached an agreement in principle to resolve the case and asked the court to approve their proposed settlement.

The court reviewed the settlement and the parties’ explanation of why it was fair, reasonable, and adequate. It approved the agreement, including compensation for Sanchez’s claims and payment of his lawyer’s fees.

Judge Katharine H. Parker retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement if necessary. The court discontinued the action with prejudice and without costs and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Sanchez v. Milea Truck Sales Corp. · No. 1:24-cv-04984
Judge
Katharine Parker
Date
Nov. 14, 2024

Background

Luis A. Sanchez brought this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law against Milea Truck Sales Corp., Milea Leasing Corp., MTS Realty Corp., and Barry Milea, individually. The parties consented to the court’s authority to decide the case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). They reached an agreement in principle and submitted a proposed settlement for judicial approval.

Settlement Review

The court reviewed the proposed settlement and the parties’ letter explaining why they believed it was fair, reasonable, and adequate. The court considered the circumstances described in the submissions and concluded that the agreement reasonably compromised Sanchez’s claims and fairly compensated his counsel for legal fees.

Ruling

The court approved the settlement agreement. At the parties’ request, it retained jurisdiction to enforce the agreement if necessary. Because the settlement was approved, the court discontinued the action with prejudice and without costs. It directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.