Martin v. 49th Street Pizza Corp.
- Sarah Netburn
- 1:24-cv-03450
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Antonio Flores Martin v. 49th Street Pizza Corp., Judge Netburn approved the settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice.
Antonio Flores Martin, 49th Street Pizza Corp. et al., and the parties’ counsel are affected. The settlement was approved, and the action was dismissed with prejudice.
What happened
Antonio Flores Martin v. 49th Street Pizza Corp. is a Fair Labor Standards Act case in which the parties agreed to a settlement in principle and asked the court to review it. The court had requested an affidavit from the plaintiff’s lawyer documenting the time spent on the case, but the lawyer did not submit it.
Even though the lawyer did not follow that order, the court decided that the interests of justice favored vacating the earlier order and entering a final judgment. After reviewing the proposed settlement, the court found it fair and reasonable.
Judge Sarah Netburn approved the settlement and dismissed the action with prejudice, meaning the case was ended and could not be brought again.
The detailed version
- Martin v. 49th Street Pizza Corp. · No. 1:24-cv-03450
- Sarah Netburn
- Sept. 17, 2025
Background
This Fair Labor Standards Act case involved a settlement that the parties had agreed to in principle. On July 18, 2025, they submitted a proposed settlement for court review under the requirement recognized in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House that certain wage-and-hour settlements receive judicial review.
The parties initially submitted the settlement papers to Judge Jennifer H. Rearden. Judge Rearden ordered the plaintiff’s counsel to submit a sworn affidavit describing the hours counsel had devoted to the case by September 11, 2025. The parties later consented to jurisdiction before Sarah Netburn under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73.
Court’s Analysis
Plaintiff’s counsel did not comply with Judge Rearden’s order and did not submit the requested affidavit. Despite that failure, the court concluded that the interests of justice were best served by vacating the prior order and entering a final judgment.
The court reviewed the proposed settlement and determined that it was fair and reasonable. The opinion does not state the settlement’s financial or other specific terms.
Disposition
Judge Sarah Netburn approved the settlement and dismissed the action with prejudice. The court entered the order on September 17, 2025.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.