Lopez Garcia v. PGGS Gourmet Inc.
- Katharine Parker
- 1:18-cv-10022
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Lopez Garcia v. PGGS Gourmet, Judge Parker approved the Fair Labor Standards Act settlement and discontinued the action with prejudice and without costs.
The plaintiffs, their counsel, and the defendants were affected. The plaintiffs’ claims and counsel’s legal-fee compensation were covered by the approved settlement; the action was discontinued with prejudice and without costs, subject to the stated 30-day restoration provision.
What happened
Lopez Garcia v. PGGS Gourmet Inc. was an action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The parties reached an agreement in principle to resolve the case and asked the court to approve it.
The court reviewed the proposed settlement, the plaintiffs’ explanation of why it was fair, the agreement’s terms, and the parties’ positions. It found the settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate, including its treatment of the plaintiffs’ legal fees. The court did not state the settlement amount or other specific settlement terms.
Judge Katharine H. Parker approved the settlement. The action was discontinued with prejudice and without costs, but the plaintiffs could ask to restore it to the active calendar within 30 days if the written settlement documentation was not completed. The court also said it was not retaining jurisdiction to enforce the settlement and directed the Clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- Lopez Garcia v. PGGS Gourmet Inc. · No. 1:18-cv-10022
- Katharine Parker
- Mar. 3, 2020
Background
The plaintiffs brought this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law against PGGS Gourmet Inc. and other defendants. The parties consented to the court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). After an arms-length settlement mediation conducted by the court, the parties reached an agreement in principle and submitted their proposed settlement for judicial approval.
Settlement review
Because the action included claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the court reviewed the settlement for fairness. The plaintiffs submitted a letter explaining why the agreement was fair, reasonable, and adequate. Considering that letter, the proposed agreement, the strengths and weaknesses of the parties’ positions, and the circumstances of the mediation, the court found that the settlement fairly and adequately addressed the plaintiffs’ claims and compensated their counsel for legal fees. The court approved the agreement.
Jurisdiction and disposition
The court stated that its order did not incorporate the settlement’s terms. It also noted that the settlement did not say the court would retain jurisdiction to enforce the agreement, and the court made no independent determination to retain such jurisdiction. Approval of the settlement therefore did not mean that the court would retain jurisdiction to enforce it.
Judge Katharine H. Parker ordered that the action be discontinued with prejudice and without costs. The order allowed the plaintiffs, within 30 days of March 3, 2020, to apply by letter to restore the action to the active calendar if any part of the written settlement documentation was not completed. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.