Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 5, 2025

Vasquez v. Pupuseria Salvadoreña

Full caption

Leticia Vasquez, Ana Murcia, Yolanda Paguada Rosales, Ana Maritza Ramos, and Ana Ramirez v. Pupuseria Salvadoreña, Inc. and Elsy Noemi Vargas

Judge
Sidney Stein
Docket
1:23-cv-09473
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
FlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Leticia Vasquez v. Pupuseria Salvadoreña, Judge Stein approved the parties’ Fair Labor Standards Act settlement and directed the Clerk to close the case.

Who this affects

The order affects the five plaintiffs, Pupuseria Salvadorena, Inc., Elsy Noemi Vargas, and the plaintiffs’ counsel by approving their settlement and ending the case on the court’s docket.

What happened

Leticia Vasquez, Ana Murcia, Yolanda Paguada Rosales, Ana Maritza Ramos, and Ana Ramirez sued Pupuseria Salvadorena, Inc. and Elsy Noemi Vargas under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The parties submitted a signed settlement agreement for court approval.

The agreement provides for a total settlement of $90,000, including $58,562.84 payable to the plaintiffs after attorney’s fees and costs. The court found the payment terms, releases, and other nonfinancial terms fair and reasonable, and also found counsel’s fees and costs reasonable.

Judge Gary Stein approved the settlement 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
Vasquez v. Pupuseria Salvadoreña · No. 1:23-cv-09473
Judge
Sidney Stein
Date
Nov. 5, 2025

Background

The case involved claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The parties submitted a fully executed settlement agreement, and counsel asked the court to approve it under the standards established in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House Inc. The court also had participated in a settlement conference on August 18, 2025.

Settlement Terms

The total settlement was $90,000. After deductions for attorney’s fees and costs, the plaintiffs would receive a net settlement amount of $58,562.84. The agreement also specified a payment schedule and remedies for the plaintiffs if the defendants defaulted. The court noted serious concerns about the defendants’ ability to pay any judgment the plaintiffs might obtain at trial.

The agreement did not contain confidentiality or non-disparagement provisions. It required the plaintiffs to provide a general release, rather than a release limited to wage-and-hour claims, while the defendants also provided a general release in favor of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs were represented by counsel, and the court approved the mutual general releases.

Attorney’s Fees and Costs

Plaintiffs’ counsel would receive a contingency fee equal to 32.5% of the $90,000 settlement, plus $2,155.74 in costs. The court found those amounts fair and reasonable because they were consistent with the retainer agreement and prevailing practice in Fair Labor Standards Act cases. The court also noted that the fee was less than counsel’s lodestar calculation of $217,457.50 for 402 hours of work. A lodestar is an estimate of reasonable fees based on hours worked and an hourly rate.

Ruling

Judge Gary Stein approved the Settlement Agreement and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-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.