Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 20, 2020

Hernandez Paz v. 572 W. 173rd Street Realty, Corp.

Judge
James Oetken
Docket
1:18-cv-03377
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Hernandez Paz v. 572 W. 173rd Street Realty, Judge Oetken approved the parties’ $15,000 settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice.

Who this affects

The settlement affected Plaintiff Miguel Hernandez Paz and the defendants. The case was dismissed with prejudice, and the court retained limited jurisdiction over disputes arising from the settlement.

What happened

In Hernandez Paz v. 572 W. 173rd Street Realty, the parties asked the court to approve a proposed settlement. The settlement allocated $15,000 to Miguel Hernandez Paz.

The court reviewed the settlement and found it fair and reasonable. One-third of the settlement, excluding costs, was designated for attorney’s fees.

Judge Oetken approved the settlement, dismissed the case with prejudice, and retained jurisdiction only to resolve disputes arising from the settlement agreement. The clerk was directed to close the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Hernandez Paz v. 572 W. 173rd Street Realty, Corp. · No. 1:18-cv-03377
Judge
James Oetken
Date
Mar. 20, 2020

Background

The parties submitted a proposed settlement for the court’s approval. The settlement provided for $15,000 to be allocated to Plaintiff Miguel Hernandez Paz. It also provided that one-third of the settlement amount, excluding costs, would be collected as attorney’s fees.

Court’s Analysis

The court reviewed the proposed settlement and found that it was fair and reasonable under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc.

Ruling

Judge J. Paul Oetken approved the proposed settlement at Docket Number 45. 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 case.

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.