Loja v. Tabernacle, LLC
- Katharine Parker
- 1:25-cv-00038
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Loja v. Tabernacle, LLC, Magistrate Judge Parker approved the parties’ FLSA settlement and discontinued the action with prejudice and without costs.
The plaintiffs, defendants, and plaintiffs’ counsel are affected by the court’s approval of the settlement and closure of the action.
What happened
Loja v. Tabernacle, LLC involved claims under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The parties reached an agreement in principle and asked the court to approve their proposed settlement.
The court reviewed the agreement and the parties’ explanation of why it was fair, reasonable, and adequate. It approved the settlement, but did not include its terms in the court’s order or retain jurisdiction to enforce it.
Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker then discontinued the action with prejudice and without costs and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
The detailed version
- Loja v. Tabernacle, LLC · No. 1:25-cv-00038
- Katharine Parker
- July 7, 2025
Background
The plaintiffs brought this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), a federal wage-and-hour law, and the New York Labor Law. The parties consented to the authority of a magistrate judge to decide the case. After reaching an agreement in principle, they submitted a proposed settlement agreement and a letter explaining why they believed the agreement was fair, reasonable, and adequate.
Court’s Analysis
The court reviewed the parties’ submissions to determine whether the proposed settlement was a reasonable compromise of the claims. It considered the circumstances described in the parties’ letter, the settlement terms, and the court’s familiarity with the strengths and weaknesses of the parties’ positions.
Ruling
The court found that the proposed settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate to address the plaintiffs’ claims and compensate the plaintiffs’ counsel for legal fees. The court approved the agreement.
The order did not incorporate the settlement’s terms. It also stated that the settlement agreement did not provide for the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the agreement, and that the court had made no independent decision to retain such jurisdiction. The court therefore stated that its approval of the settlement should not be understood as retaining enforcement jurisdiction.
As a result of approving the settlement, the court discontinued the action with prejudice and without costs. It directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.