Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 21, 2025

Leon v. Barnorth Group LLC

Judge
Rearden
Docket
1:24-cv-08060
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
FlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Leon v. Barnorth Group LLC, Judge Rearden approved the FLSA settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice.

Who this affects

Miguel Manuel Puma Leon, Barnorth Group LLC and the other defendants named in the caption, and the plaintiff’s counsel; the case’s dismissal with prejudice concluded the action.

What happened

In Leon v. Barnorth Group LLC, the parties reached a settlement of the plaintiff’s Fair Labor Standards Act claims and asked the court to approve it.

The settlement required a total payment of $22,500: $14,602.67 for Miguel Manuel Puma Leon and $7,897.33 for his lawyers’ fees and costs.

Judge Rearden found the settlement fair and reasonable, approved it, dismissed the case with prejudice, and retained jurisdiction only to resolve settlement disputes or approve modifications.

The detailed version

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

Case
Leon v. Barnorth Group LLC · No. 1:24-cv-08060
Judge
Rearden
Date
Mar. 21, 2025

Background

The court was informed that the parties had settled Miguel Manuel Puma Leon’s Fair Labor Standards Act claims. They submitted a proposed settlement for court approval.

Settlement Terms

The proposed settlement provided for an aggregate payment of $22,500. Of that amount, $14,602.67 was allocated to Leon, and $7,897.33 was allocated to Helen F. Dalton & Associates, P.C., for attorney’s fees and costs.

Ruling

The court reviewed the proposed settlement and found it fair and reasonable under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. Judge Jennifer H. Rearden approved the settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice. The approval required any modification of the settlement agreement to receive court approval, even if the agreement purported to allow the parties to modify it without court approval. The court retained jurisdiction solely to resolve disputes arising from the settlement agreement and the settlement of the action. The clerk was directed 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.