Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 18, 2020

Guerra v. J.A.E.-L.A.R. Restaurant Corp

Judge
Katharine Parker
Docket
1:19-cv-04144
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
FlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

Guerra v. J.A.E. Restaurant Corp.: Judge Parker approved the parties’ settlement and discontinued the action with prejudice and without costs.

Who this affects

The settlement and dismissal affected Ignacio Guerra, the defendants J.A.E. Restaurant Corp. d/b/a Caridad Restaurant, Amaury Espinal, Amin Espinal, and Laura Rodriguez, and the plaintiff’s counsel. The order also concerned the claims asserted on behalf of others similarly situated.

What happened

In Guerra v. J.A.E. Restaurant Corp., Ignacio Guerra brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law on behalf of himself and others similarly situated. The parties reached an agreement in principle and asked the court to approve their proposed settlement.

The court reviewed the proposed agreement and the plaintiff’s explanation of why it was fair, reasonable, and adequate. It approved the settlement, including the payment of the plaintiff’s lawyers’ fees.

Judge Katharine H. Parker retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement if necessary. She discontinued the action with prejudice and without costs, while allowing the plaintiff to ask that the case be restored within 30 days if the written settlement documents were not completed; the clerk was directed to close the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Guerra v. J.A.E.-L.A.R. Restaurant Corp · No. 1:19-cv-04144
Judge
Katharine Parker
Date
Aug. 18, 2020

Background

Ignacio Guerra brought this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law on behalf of himself and others similarly situated. The case was before Judge Katharine H. Parker with the parties’ consent under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The parties reached an agreement in principle to resolve the action and submitted a proposed settlement for court approval.

Settlement review

The court reviewed the plaintiff’s submission explaining why the settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate, along with the settlement’s terms. The court applied the required fairness review for Fair Labor Standards Act settlements and found that the agreement was fair, reasonable, and adequate both to address the plaintiff’s claims and to compensate the plaintiff’s counsel for legal fees. The court therefore approved the proposed settlement.

Disposition

The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement if necessary. Because the settlement was approved, the action was discontinued with prejudice and without costs. The order provided that, within 30 days of its date, the plaintiff could apply by letter to restore the action to the active calendar if any part of the written settlement documentation was not completed. The clerk was directed to close the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.