Santander v. Mister Buy Corp.
- Gabriel Gorenstein
- 1:25-cv-06437
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Santander v. Mister Buy, Judge Gorenstein approved the parties’ Fair Labor Standards Act settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice.
Luis Geovany Santander and the defendants were affected: the court approved their settlement, dismissed the action with prejudice and without costs except as provided in the agreement, and retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement.
What happened
Luis Geovany Santander v. Mister Buy Corp. et al. involved claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The parties agreed to have Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein decide the matter.
The parties submitted a proposed settlement agreement. After reviewing it under the standard required for Fair Labor Standards Act settlements, the court found that the agreement was fair and reasonable and approved it.
Judge Gorenstein dismissed the action with prejudice and without costs, except as provided in the settlement agreement. The court kept authority to enforce the settlement, declared any pending motions moot, and directed the Clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- Santander v. Mister Buy Corp. · No. 1:25-cv-06437
- Gabriel Gorenstein
- Dec. 2, 2025
Background
This action included claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act. On November 12, 2025, the court entered an order reflecting the parties’ consent to have the matter decided by United States Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
Settlement Review
In a December 1, 2025 filing, the parties submitted a proposed settlement agreement. The court reviewed the agreement under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., the Second Circuit precedent cited in the opinion for reviewing Fair Labor Standards Act settlements. The court found the settlement fair and reasonable and approved it. The opinion does not state the settlement’s specific terms.
Disposition
The court ordered that the action be dismissed with prejudice and without costs, except as may be stated in the settlement agreement. Dismissal with prejudice bars the action from being brought again. The court retained jurisdiction, meaning continuing authority, to enforce the settlement agreement. It also ruled that any pending motions were moot and requested that the Clerk close the case.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.