Pacheco v. Chinelus Corp.
- Katharine Parker
- 1:18-cv-09372
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Pacheco v. Chinelus Corp., Judge Parker approved the wage-settlement agreement and discontinued the action with prejudice and without costs.
The plaintiffs, the defendants, and the plaintiffs’ counsel were affected by approval of the settlement. The action was discontinued with prejudice and without costs, while the court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement if necessary.
What happened
Pacheco v. Chinelus Corp. was brought under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The parties reached an agreement in principle to resolve the action and asked the court to approve their proposed settlement.
The court reviewed the settlement, the plaintiffs’ explanation of why it was fair, the agreement’s terms, and the strengths and weaknesses of the parties’ positions. It found the settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate for the plaintiffs and their lawyers’ fees.
Judge Katharine H. Parker approved the agreement, retained authority to enforce it if necessary, and discontinued the action with prejudice and without costs. The plaintiffs could ask to restore the case within 30 days if any written settlement documents were not completed, and the clerk was directed to close the case.
The detailed version
- Pacheco v. Chinelus Corp. · No. 1:18-cv-09372
- Katharine Parker
- Dec. 11, 2019
Background
Ramiro Pacheco and Kenya B Castillo Alvarenga brought this action individually and on behalf of others similarly situated under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). They reached an agreement in principle to resolve the case and submitted a proposed settlement for judicial approval.
The court explained that settlements of claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act require a judicial fairness review. The plaintiffs submitted a letter explaining why they believed the proposed settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate.
Court’s Decision
The court reviewed the parties’ submissions, the settlement terms, the plaintiffs’ representations, and the court’s familiarity with the strengths and weaknesses of the parties’ positions. It found that the proposed settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate both to address the plaintiffs’ claims and to compensate their lawyers for legal fees. The court therefore approved the settlement.
At the parties’ request, the court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement if necessary. The court also ordered that the action be discontinued with prejudice and without costs. However, within 30 days of the order, the plaintiffs could apply by letter to restore the action to the active calendar if any part of the written settlement documentation was not completed. The clerk was directed to close the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.