Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 11, 2025

Andujar v. Skyc Management LLC

Judge
Katharine Parker
Docket
1:23-cv-08764
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
EmploymentFlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Andujar v. Skyc Management LLC, Magistrate Judge Parker approved the settlement and discontinued the Fair Labor Standards Act case with prejudice and without costs.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs, defendants, and plaintiffs’ counsel were affected by the approved settlement and the resulting closure of the case.

What happened

Andujar v. Skyc Management LLC involved claims under the 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 found that the settlement addressed the plaintiffs’ claims and compensated their lawyers for legal fees.

Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker approved the settlement, retained jurisdiction to enforce it if necessary, 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
Andujar v. Skyc Management LLC · No. 1:23-cv-08764
Judge
Katharine Parker
Date
July 11, 2025

Background

The plaintiffs brought this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The parties consented to the court’s authority to decide the matter. 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.

Settlement Review

Because settlements of Fair Labor Standards Act claims require judicial review for fairness, the court examined the parties’ submissions and the proposed agreement. The court found that the agreement was fair, reasonable, and adequate both to address the plaintiffs’ claims and to compensate the plaintiffs’ counsel for legal fees. The opinion does not state the settlement amount or describe the agreement’s individual payment terms.

Ruling

The court approved the proposed settlement. At the parties’ request, it retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement if necessary. The court also ordered that the action be discontinued with prejudice and without costs and 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.