Castillo v. G8X LLC d/b/a Greek Xpress
Mauro Castillo v. G8X LLC d/b/a Greek Xpress, and Dimitrios Soursos a/k/a Jimmy Soursos
- Analisa Torres
- 1:25-cv-04406
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Castillo v. G8X, Judge Torres required public settlement-approval materials before the FLSA case could be dismissed and suspended other deadlines.
Mauro Castillo, G8X LLC d/b/a Greek Xpress, and Dimitrios Soursos, because the order sets the procedure and deadline for seeking approval of their reported settlement and pauses other case activity.
What happened
Mauro Castillo sued G8X LLC and Dimitrios Soursos in a Fair Labor Standards Act case, and the court was told that the parties had reached a settlement.
The court said the case could not be dismissed based on that settlement unless the court or the Department of Labor approved the agreement. The parties had to file a request for approval and the settlement agreement publicly, or provide proof of Department of Labor approval, by October 9, 2025.
Judge Analisa Torres also required information about the settlement’s fairness, possible recovery, litigation risks, disputed wages and hours, and requested attorney fees. Pending motions were declared moot, other deadlines were suspended, and conferences were canceled.
The detailed version
- Castillo v. G8X LLC d/b/a Greek Xpress · No. 1:25-cv-04406
- Analisa Torres
- Sept. 9, 2025
Background
The court stated that the parties had reached a settlement in Mauro Castillo’s Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case. The order does not describe the underlying wage claims or the settlement’s dollar amount or other terms.
Settlement-Approval Requirement
The court explained that an FLSA case cannot be dismissed based on a settlement unless the settlement agreement is approved by the court or by the Department of Labor. To the extent Castillo sought dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41, Castillo or the parties jointly had to do one of two things by October 9, 2025: file a letter motion asking the court to approve the settlement, together with the settlement agreement, or provide documentation showing Department of Labor approval.
The letter motion had to explain why the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable. The court required discussion of Castillo’s possible recovery, the burdens and expenses the settlement would avoid, the seriousness of the parties’ litigation risks, whether experienced counsel negotiated at arm’s length, and the possibility of fraud or collusion. The parties also had to address whether a genuine dispute existed about the hours worked or compensation owed, and how much of the settlement Castillo’s attorney would seek as fees.
The court said that conclusory statements were insufficient. It also stated that, absent special circumstances, it would not approve a settlement filed under seal or in redacted form; a settlement with sweeping nondisclosure provisions; or a broad release of claims unrelated to the FLSA issues. Any request for attorney fees had to include contemporaneous billing records showing, for each attorney, the date, hours worked, and nature of the work.
Other Proceedings and Ruling
The parties could voluntarily consent to have Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses oversee settlement approval. If they consented, they had to file a completed consent form by October 9, 2025. The order stated that the parties could withhold consent without negative consequences and that any appeal would go directly to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Judge Analisa Torres did not approve the settlement or dismiss the case in this order. She ruled that the required approval materials had to be filed or Department of Labor approval documented before dismissal could be pursued. The court declared pending motions moot, suspended all other deadlines, and vacated all conferences.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.