Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 29, 2020

Garcia v. Fish Republic LLC

Judge
James Oetken
Docket
1:19-cv-06116
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
FlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Garcia v. Fish Republic LLC, Judge Oetken approved the FLSA settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice.

Who this affects

Anastacio Garcia and the defendants were affected by the court’s approval of their settlement and dismissal of the case with prejudice. The court retained limited jurisdiction over disputes arising from the settlement agreement.

What happened

Garcia v. Fish Republic LLC was a Fair Labor Standards Act case in which the parties told the court they had reached a settlement. The proposed settlement would pay Anastasio Garcia $12,000, with one-third allocated to attorney’s fees and costs.

The court reviewed the proposed agreement and found it fair and reasonable. It approved the settlement.

Judge J. Paul Oetken dismissed the case with prejudice and kept jurisdiction only to resolve disputes arising from the settlement agreement. The clerk was directed to close the motion and the case.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Garcia v. Fish Republic LLC · No. 1:19-cv-06116
Judge
James Oetken
Date
Jan. 29, 2020

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. The agreement provided for $12,000 to be allocated to Plaintiff Anastasio Garcia in connection with his FLSA claims. One-third of the settlement amount was to be collected as attorney’s fees and costs.

Ruling

The court reviewed the proposed settlement and found it fair and reasonable under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. The court approved the proposed settlement at Docket Number 22.

Disposition

The case was dismissed with prejudice. The court retained jurisdiction solely to resolve disputes arising from the settlement agreement and the settlement of the action. The clerk was directed to close the motion at Docket Number 22 and close the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.