Balderas v. 8 Chelsea Corp.
- Katharine Parker
- 1:18-cv-11149
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Balderas v. 8 Chelsea Corp., Judge Parker approved the parties’ fair-wage settlement and discontinued the action with prejudice, subject to a 30-day restoration condition.
Vidal Balderas, 8 Chelsea Corp., the other defendants, and Balderas’s counsel were affected by the court’s approval of the settlement and discontinuation of the action.
What happened
Balderas v. 8 Chelsea Corp. was an action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The parties reached an agreement in principle and asked the court to approve their proposed settlement.
The court reviewed the parties’ submissions, their explanation of why the settlement was fair, the agreement’s terms, and the strengths and weaknesses of their positions. The order did not include the settlement’s terms and did not provide that the court would keep authority to enforce the agreement.
Judge Parker approved the settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate, including its compensation for the plaintiff’s lawyer. The action was discontinued with prejudice and without costs, but the plaintiff could ask by letter within 30 days to restore the case if the written settlement documentation was not completed; the Clerk was directed to close the case.
The detailed version
- Balderas v. 8 Chelsea Corp. · No. 1:18-cv-11149
- Katharine Parker
- Dec. 3, 2019
Background
Vidal Balderas brought this action against 8 Chelsea Corp. and other defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The parties consented to the magistrate judge’s authority under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). They reached an agreement in principle and submitted a proposed settlement for judicial approval.
Settlement Review
The court conducted the fairness review required for Fair Labor Standards Act settlements. It considered the parties’ letter explaining why the settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate, the proposed agreement’s terms, the totality of the relevant circumstances, and the court’s familiarity with the strengths and weaknesses of the parties’ positions.
Ruling
The court found that the settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate both to address Balderas’s claims and to compensate his counsel for legal fees, and approved the agreement. The order did not incorporate the settlement’s terms. It also did not expressly retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement, and the court made no independent determination to do so.
The court ordered that the action be discontinued with prejudice and without costs. However, if any part of the written settlement documentation was not completed within 30 days of the order, Balderas could apply by letter to restore the action to the court’s active calendar. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case on the docket.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.