Barrera v. 1611 Food Mart Inc.
- Sarah Cave
- 1:19-cv-00606
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Barrera v. 1611 Food Mart Inc., Judge Cave approved the parties’ Fair Labor Standards Act settlement, dismissed the action with prejudice, and retained jurisdiction to enforce it.
The three plaintiffs and the defendants—1611 Food Mart Inc. d/b/a “Dollar Deal,” Padam Bajaj, and Rakhi Bajaj—were bound by the approved settlement and dismissal.
What happened
In Barrera v. 1611 Food Mart Inc., the parties asked the court to approve their proposed settlement of a wage-and-hour case under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The court reviewed the parties’ joint submission, settlement agreement, and supporting exhibits. It considered the general presumption favoring fair settlements in these cases, the parties’ ability to assess the settlement, and financial difficulties that some defendants might face if the settlement was not completed.
Judge Sarah L. Cave found that the settlement terms, including attorney-fee and cost payments, appeared fair and reasonable. She approved the settlement, dismissed the action with prejudice, retained jurisdiction to enforce the agreement, and ruled that any pending motions were moot.
The detailed version
- Barrera v. 1611 Food Mart Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-00606
- Sarah Cave
- Aug. 11, 2020
Background
The plaintiffs brought a wage-and-hour case under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The parties consented to Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave’s jurisdiction to review their proposed settlement. They submitted a joint letter supporting the settlement and a proposed settlement agreement for court approval.
Settlement Review
The court reviewed the parties’ submission, the agreement, and the accompanying exhibits under the standard for reviewing Fair Labor Standards Act settlements. The court noted that these settlements generally receive a strong presumption of fairness because the parties are usually better positioned than the court to evaluate their reasonableness. The court also considered that, if the settlement were not completed, certain defendants might face difficult financial circumstances worsened by the economic downturn caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The court found that these circumstances supported the settlement’s reasonableness.
The court concluded that all settlement terms, including the allocation of attorney fees and costs, appeared fair and reasonable under the circumstances and the factors identified in Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc.
Ruling
Judge Sarah L. Cave approved the settlement. The action was dismissed 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 of Court to close the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.