Cartagena v. City of New York
- Sarah Netburn
- 1:23-cv-08711
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Cartagena v. City of New York, Judge Netburn ordered review of the parties’ proposed Fair Labor Standards Act settlement and adjourned the conference.
The plaintiffs and defendants in the Fair Labor Standards Act case, including the parties’ proposed settlement and scheduled settlement conference.
What happened
In Cartagena v. City of New York, the parties told the court they had reached a settlement in principle in this Fair Labor Standards Act case.
Because the case involves wage-and-hour rights under that law, the court required the parties to submit their proposed settlement for review, along with a short letter explaining why it should be approved. The filing deadline was June 11, 2025.
Judge Sarah Netburn adjourned the May 13, 2025 settlement conference without setting another date.
The detailed version
- Cartagena v. City of New York · No. 1:23-cv-08711
- Sarah Netburn
- May 9, 2025
Background
The parties notified the court that they had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion identifies the case as arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law governing matters including pay and working conditions.
Court’s Action
Because this was a Fair Labor Standards Act case, the court directed the parties to submit the proposed settlement agreement for judicial review under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House. The parties also had to submit a short cover letter explaining why the court should approve the settlement. The court set June 11, 2025, as the filing deadline.
The court also adjourned the May 13, 2025 settlement conference without setting a new date. The opinion does not state whether the proposed settlement was ultimately approved or describe its terms.
Disposition
Judge Sarah Netburn entered the order requiring the settlement materials and adjourned the settlement conference. The order did not decide the parties’ underlying claims or state that the settlement was approved.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.