De Los Santos Martinez v. 11 Kitchen Inc.
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:24-cv-02851
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In De Los Santos Martinez v. 11 Kitchen, Magistrate Judge Cave approved the FLSA settlement and dismissed the action with prejudice.
The two plaintiffs and the defendants were affected by approval of their settlement. The action was dismissed with prejudice, and the court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement.
What happened
In Cornelio De Los Santos Martinez v. 11 Kitchen Inc., the parties asked the court to approve a wage-and-hour settlement under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The court initially found that the agreement did not explain each plaintiff’s payment or how installments would be divided between the plaintiffs and their lawyers and costs.
The parties revised the agreement twice after the court ordered corrections. The final version identified each plaintiff’s recovery and allocated each installment among the plaintiffs, attorneys’ fees, and costs. The court found the settlement and fee allocation fair and reasonable.
Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave approved the settlement, dismissed the action with prejudice and without costs except as provided in the agreement, retained jurisdiction to enforce the agreement, and directed that the case be closed. The court also stated that any pending motions were moot.
The detailed version
- De Los Santos Martinez v. 11 Kitchen Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-02851
- Vernon Broderick
- Aug. 15, 2025
Background
This was a wage-and-hour case under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The parties consented to Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave’s jurisdiction to review their proposed settlement. They submitted a joint motion and settlement agreement for approval under the Second Circuit’s requirements for reviewing Fair Labor Standards Act settlements.
Settlement revisions
The court’s initial review found that the agreement lacked a breakdown showing how much each of the two plaintiffs would receive and how each installment payment would be allocated between the plaintiffs, attorneys’ fees, and costs. The court also found that the lawyers had not submitted documentation supporting their requested reimbursement of costs. It ordered the parties to revise and resubmit the agreement.
The parties’ first revised submission stated how much each plaintiff would receive and included documentation supporting the requested costs, but it still did not allocate each installment payment among the plaintiffs, attorneys’ fees, and costs. The court ordered another revision. The parties then submitted a second revised agreement containing the required breakdown.
Court’s analysis
After reviewing the motion, the second revised agreement, exhibits, and record, the court found that the agreement’s terms—including the allocation of attorneys’ fees and costs—appeared fair and reasonable under the circumstances and the factors used in this Circuit. The court reviewed the plaintiffs’ engagement letter and found no indication of overreaching or deceptive conduct. It also reviewed counsel’s billing records and found the hourly rate and hours worked reasonable.
Disposition
The court approved the settlement agreement. The order states that the action is dismissed with prejudice and without costs except as provided in the agreement. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the agreement, ruled that any pending motions were moot, directed that the settlement motion be marked “granted,” and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
The opinion’s text identifies Sarah L. Cave as the United States Magistrate Judge who issued and signed the order, although the supplied case metadata identifies Vernon Broderick as the judge.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.