Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 6, 2020

Peralta v. SHK Holdings Inc.

Judge
Gabriel Gorenstein
Docket
1:19-cv-00360
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
FlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Peralta v. SHK Holdings, Magistrate Judge Gorenstein approved the fair, reasonable Fair Labor Standards Act settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice.

Who this affects

Miguel Peralta, SHK Holdings Inc., and the other defendants were affected by the approved settlement and dismissal of the action.

What happened

In Peralta v. SHK Holdings Inc., Miguel Peralta brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act against SHK Holdings Inc. and other defendants.

The parties submitted a proposed settlement, and the court reviewed it under the required standard. The court found the settlement fair and reasonable and approved it.

Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning the action was closed on those claims. The court retained authority to enforce the settlement, declared any pending motions moot, and directed the Clerk to close the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Peralta v. SHK Holdings Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-00360
Judge
Gabriel Gorenstein
Date
Feb. 6, 2020

Background

This action involved claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The parties had consented to have the matter decided by United States Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The parties submitted a proposed settlement agreement in a January 29, 2020 filing.

Settlement Review

The court reviewed the proposed settlement under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., as required for the settlement of Fair Labor Standards Act claims. The court found that the agreement was fair and reasonable and approved it.

Ruling and Effect

The court dismissed the action with prejudice and without costs except as provided in the settlement agreement. It retained jurisdiction, meaning continuing authority, to enforce the settlement agreement. The court also ruled that any pending motions were moot and directed the Clerk to close the case.

Disposition

The settlement was approved, and the action was dismissed with prejudice.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.