Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 26, 2020

Fragoso Banos v. 34th Street Diner, Inc.

Judge
Gabriel Gorenstein
Docket
1:18-cv-02815
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
FlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Fragoso Banos v. 34th Street Diner, Judge Gorenstein approved the settlement, dismissed the action with prejudice, and retained jurisdiction to enforce the agreement.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs and defendants in the action are affected: the approved settlement ended the case with prejudice, subject to the court's retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement.

What happened

In Fragoso Banos v. 34th Street Diner, the parties submitted a proposed settlement in a case involving claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The court reviewed the agreement and found it fair and reasonable. The court approved the settlement.

Judge Gorenstein dismissed the action with prejudice and without costs except as provided in the settlement agreement, retained jurisdiction to enforce the agreement, and found any pending motions moot.

The detailed version

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

Case
Fragoso Banos v. 34th Street Diner, Inc. · No. 1:18-cv-02815
Judge
Gabriel Gorenstein
Date
May 26, 2020

Background

The plaintiffs brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act against 34th Street Diner, Inc. and other defendants. The parties consented to have the matter decided by United States Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). They submitted a proposed settlement agreement in a filing dated May 19, 2020.

Settlement Review

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

Disposition

Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein ordered that the action be dismissed with prejudice and without costs, except as stated in the settlement agreement. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement, ruled that any pending motions were moot, and requested that the Clerk 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.