Hernandez v. Tamrak Management, Inc.
- Katharine Parker
- 1:19-cv-06825
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Hernandez v. Tamrak Management, Inc., Judge Parker approved the parties’ Fair Labor Standards Act settlement and discontinued the action with prejudice.
Carlos Hernandez and Tamrak Management, Inc.; the approved settlement resolves Hernandez’s claims, and the order addresses compensation for his counsel and whether the court will retain enforcement jurisdiction.
What happened
Hernandez v. Tamrak Management, Inc. involved claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The parties reached an agreement in principle and submitted their proposed settlement for court approval.
The court found the settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate to address Carlos Hernandez’s claims and compensate his lawyer for legal fees. The court did not state the settlement amount or incorporate the agreement into its order.
Judge Parker approved the settlement and discontinued the action with prejudice and without costs. The court did not retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement, and the clerk was directed to close the case; Hernandez could seek restoration of the case within 30 days if the written settlement documents were not completed.
The detailed version
- Hernandez v. Tamrak Management, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-06825
- Katharine Parker
- Mar. 30, 2020
Background
Carlos Hernandez brought this action against Tamrak Management, Inc. under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The parties consented to the jurisdiction of United States Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). After reaching an agreement in principle, they presented a proposed settlement for approval during a March 3, 2020 settlement conference.
Settlement Approval
Because Fair Labor Standards Act settlements require judicial fairness review, the court examined the proposed agreement. The court found that its terms were fair, reasonable, and adequate both to address Hernandez’s claims and to compensate his counsel for legal fees. The court therefore approved the proposed settlement.
The order did not incorporate the settlement’s terms. It also stated that the agreement did not provide that the court would retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement, and the court made no independent determination to retain such jurisdiction. The approval therefore was not a determination that the court would later enforce the agreement.
Disposition
As a result of approving the settlement, the court discontinued the action with prejudice and without costs. The order provided that, if any part of the written settlement documentation remained incomplete within 30 days after the order’s date, Hernandez could apply by letter to restore the action to the court’s active calendar. The clerk was directed to close the case on the docket.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.