Talo Vasquez v. Oasis Hospitality Inc.
- James Oetken
- 1:19-cv-06503
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Talo Vasquez v. Oasis Hospitality, Judge Oetken approved the FLSA settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice.
Talo Vasquez, her counsel, and Oasis Hospitality Inc. and the other defendants were affected by the approved settlement and dismissal with prejudice.
What happened
In Talo Vasquez v. Oasis Hospitality Inc., the parties reached a settlement in a Fair Labor Standards Act case and asked the court to approve it.
The settlement provided $11,500 for Talo Vasquez’s claims. Her counsel represented that one-third would cover attorney’s fees and costs, although the filing incorrectly listed $4,312; the court treated the request as one-third, or $3,833.
Judge Oetken found the settlement fair and reasonable, approved it, dismissed the case with prejudice, and retained jurisdiction only over disputes arising from the settlement agreement.
The detailed version
- Talo Vasquez v. Oasis Hospitality Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-06503
- James Oetken
- July 30, 2020
Background
The parties notified the court that they had reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case and submitted the proposed settlement for approval. The proposal allocated $11,500.00 to Plaintiff Talo Vasquez in connection with her FLSA claims.
Attorney’s Fees and Costs
Plaintiff’s counsel represented that one-third of the settlement would be collected for attorney’s fees and costs. The filing, however, stated that amount as $4,312.00, which the court noted was approximately 37.5% of the settlement. Because the filing repeatedly referred to a one-third figure, the court construed the request as seeking one-third of the settlement for fees and costs, stated as $3,833.00.
Ruling
The court reviewed the settlement as so construed and found it fair and reasonable under the standard described in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. Judge J. Paul Oetken approved the proposed settlement at Docket Number 30 and dismissed the case with prejudice. The court retained jurisdiction solely to resolve disputes arising from the settlement agreement and the settlement of the action, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.