Ramirez v. East River Restaurant Group, LTD.
- James Oetken
- 1:19-cv-02534
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Ramirez v. East River Restaurant Group, Judge Oetken approved a $40,000 wage settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice.
The settlement affected Plaintiff Andres Zamora Ramirez and East River Restaurant Group, LTD., and the other defendants identified in the case caption. The case was dismissed with prejudice after settlement.
What happened
In Ramirez v. East River Restaurant Group, the parties told the court they had settled the plaintiff’s claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage-and-hour law.
The proposed settlement provided $40,000 for Andres Zamora Ramirez, with one-third of the total allocated to attorney’s fees and costs. The court reviewed the agreement and found it fair and reasonable.
Judge Oetken approved the settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning it cannot be refiled. The court kept jurisdiction only to resolve disputes arising from the settlement agreement and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
The detailed version
- Ramirez v. East River Restaurant Group, LTD. · No. 1:19-cv-02534
- James Oetken
- Dec. 10, 2019
Background
The parties notified the court that they had reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case. They submitted a proposed settlement for court approval.
Proposed Settlement
The proposed agreement allocated $40,000 to Plaintiff Andres Zamora Ramirez in connection with his FLSA claims. One-third of the settlement amount was to be collected as attorney’s fees and costs.
Court’s Analysis
The court reviewed the proposed settlement under the standard requiring settlements of FLSA claims to be fair and reasonable. It found that the agreement satisfied that standard.
Disposition
Judge J. Paul Oetken approved the proposed settlement at Docket Number 28. The court dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning the action may not be refiled. The court retained jurisdiction solely to resolve disputes arising from the settlement agreement and the settlement of the action. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.