Saravia v. Hell's Kitchen Cream & Sugar Inc.
- James Oetken
- 1:18-cv-06129
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Saravia v. Hell’s Kitchen Cream & Sugar, Judge Oetken approved the FLSA settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice.
The plaintiffs and defendants in the FLSA case were affected by the approved settlement and dismissal with prejudice; the court retained limited jurisdiction over settlement-related disputes.
What happened
In Santos B Saravia et al. v. Hell’s Kitchen Cream & Sugar Inc. et al., the parties reached a settlement in a Fair Labor Standards Act case and asked the court to approve it.
The settlement provided $85,000 for the plaintiffs’ claims. One-third would be paid as attorney’s fees after deducting $1,165 in costs. The court found the agreement fair and reasonable, approved it, and dismissed the case with prejudice.
Judge J. Paul Oetken ordered that the court retain jurisdiction only to resolve disputes arising from the settlement, directed the clerk to close the case, and entered the order on June 22, 2020.
The detailed version
- Saravia v. Hell's Kitchen Cream & Sugar Inc. · No. 1:18-cv-06129
- James Oetken
- June 22, 2020
Background
The parties notified the court that they had reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case. They submitted a proposed settlement for court approval at Docket Number 62.
Settlement Terms
The proposed agreement provided for $85,000 to be allocated to the plaintiffs in connection with their FLSA claims. One-third of the settlement amount would be collected as attorney’s fees after $1,165 in costs were deducted.
Ruling
The court reviewed the proposed settlement and found it fair and reasonable under the standard applied in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. The court approved the proposed settlement at Docket Number 62 and dismissed the case with prejudice. It retained jurisdiction solely to resolve disputes arising from the settlement agreement and settlement of the action. The clerk was directed to close the case.
Effect
The order approved the parties’ settlement and ended the case with prejudice, while preserving the court’s limited authority to address disputes arising from the settlement.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.