Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 17, 2020

Stewart v. Kaltner

Judge
Gabriel Gorenstein
Docket
1:17-cv-00565
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
FlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Stewart v. Kaltner, Judge Gorenstein approved the parties’ Fair Labor Standards Act settlement, dismissed the case with prejudice, and retained jurisdiction to enforce it.

Who this affects

The parties to the Fair Labor Standards Act action: David Stewart and George Kaltner, et al. The case was closed, subject to the court’s retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement.

What happened

In Stewart v. Kaltner, the parties submitted a proposed settlement resolving claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The court reviewed the settlement under the required fairness standard and found it fair and reasonable. The court approved the settlement.

Judge Gorenstein dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs except as provided in the settlement agreement. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement, declared any pending motions moot, and directed the clerk to close the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Stewart v. Kaltner · No. 1:17-cv-00565
Judge
Gabriel Gorenstein
Date
June 17, 2020

Background

The case included claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act. On September 25, 2019, the parties consented to have the matter decided by United States Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

Settlement Review

The parties submitted a proposed settlement agreement in filings dated June 12 and June 17, 2020. The court reviewed the agreement under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2015), and found that the settlement was fair and reasonable.

Disposition

The court approved the settlement. It dismissed the action with prejudice and without costs except as provided in the settlement agreement. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement, ruled that any pending motions were moot, and directed the clerk 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.