Medina Ortiz v. 157 Matanza Deli Grocery Inc.
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:19-cv-05405
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Medina Ortiz v. 157 Matanza Deli Grocery, Judge Caproni approved the parties’ revised settlement as fair and reasonable and closed the case.
Juan Ernesto Medina Ortiz, the defendants, and the other people he sued on behalf of; the opinion does not state the settlement’s terms.
What happened
Juan Ernesto Medina Ortiz sued 157 Matanza Deli Grocery Inc. and three individuals, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated. The parties submitted a proposed settlement for the court’s approval.
On November 15, 2019, the court declined to approve the first agreement because of drafting errors and provisions concerning non-disparagement and publicity. The court otherwise found that agreement fair and reasonable and ordered the parties to submit a revised version.
After the parties submitted a revised agreement that corrected the identified problems, Judge Valerie Caproni approved it as fair and reasonable. The court directed the clerk to terminate all open motions and close the case.
The detailed version
- Medina Ortiz v. 157 Matanza Deli Grocery Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-05405
- Valerie Caproni
- Dec. 12, 2019
Background
Juan Ernesto Medina Ortiz brought the case individually and on behalf of others similarly situated against 157 Matanza Deli Grocery Inc., doing business as 157 Matanza Deli Grocery, and Luis Melo, Jose Miguel Ortiz, and Juan Carlos Ortiz. The parties submitted a proposed settlement agreement for court approval under the Second Circuit’s requirements for reviewing certain wage-and-hour settlements.
Earlier Settlement Review
On November 15, 2019, the court did not approve the initial settlement agreement because of drafting errors and provisions addressing non-disparagement and non-publicity. The court otherwise found the agreement fair and reasonable and directed counsel to submit a revised agreement consistent with that order.
Ruling and Disposition
The parties submitted a revised settlement agreement on December 11, 2019. The court stated that the revised agreement cured the defects identified in its November 15 order and approved the agreement as fair and reasonable. The clerk was directed to terminate all open motions and close the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.