Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 10, 2020

Patricio v. AHDS Bagel LLC

Judge
James Oetken
Docket
1:17-cv-04127
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
FlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Patricio v. AHDS Bagel LLC, Judge Oetken approved a $35,000 Fair Labor Standards Act settlement and ordered the parties to file the signed agreement.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs and defendants in this FLSA case, the plaintiffs in the two related cases, and the attorneys receiving fees from the settlement.

What happened

In Patricio v. AHDS Bagel LLC, the parties told the court they had settled this Fair Labor Standards Act case and two related cases. They asked the court to approve their proposed settlement.

The settlement provided $35,000 to be divided proportionally among the plaintiffs for their wage-law claims. One-third of the settlement, after costs were deducted, would go toward attorney fees.

Judge James Oetken found the settlement fair and reasonable and approved it. Because the agreement had not yet been signed, the court ordered the plaintiffs to file the signed agreement by May 10, 2020.

The detailed version

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

Case
Patricio v. AHDS Bagel LLC · No. 1:17-cv-04127
Judge
James Oetken
Date
Apr. 10, 2020

Background

The court was notified that the parties had reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case and two related cases. The parties submitted a proposed settlement for court approval.

Proposed Settlement

The proposed settlement provided $35,000 to be allocated proportionally among the various plaintiffs in connection with their FLSA claims. One-third of the settlement amount, after deducting costs, would be collected as attorney fees.

Ruling

Under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., the court reviewed the settlement for fairness and reasonableness. Judge J. Paul Oetken found the proposed settlement fair and reasonable and approved the settlement submitted at Docket Number 139. Because the settlement had not yet been executed, the court directed the plaintiffs to file an executed settlement agreement by May 10, 2020.

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.