Mercado v. 121 Seaman Avenue, LLC
- Sarah Cave
- 1:19-cv-09000
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Mercado v. 121 Seaman Avenue, LLC, Judge Cave approved the FLSA settlement and dismissed the action with prejudice.
The parties to the FLSA action were bound by the approved settlement; the case was dismissed with prejudice, and the court retained jurisdiction to enforce the agreement.
What happened
Mercado v. 121 Seaman Avenue, LLC was a wage-and-hour case under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The parties asked the court to approve their proposed settlement.
The court reviewed the settlement agreement, supporting materials, and the proposed allocation of attorneys’ fees and costs. It found all terms fair and reasonable under the circumstances and approved the settlement.
Judge Sarah L. Cave dismissed the action 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
- Mercado v. 121 Seaman Avenue, LLC · No. 1:19-cv-09000
- Sarah Cave
- Sept. 11, 2020
Background
Daniel Mercado brought this wage-and-hour action against 121 Seaman Avenue, LLC, and other defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The parties consented to Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave’s jurisdiction for review of their proposed settlement.
Settlement Review
The parties submitted a settlement agreement and supporting letter-motions for approval under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. The court explained that FLSA settlements are generally subject to court review and that courts recognize a strong presumption that such settlements are fair. The court reviewed the proposed agreement, supporting materials, exhibits, and the allocation of attorneys’ fees and costs. Applying the circumstances and factors identified in Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc., the court found all settlement terms 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, ruled that any pending motions were moot, directed the Clerk to mark the settlement-approval filing as granted, and directed the Clerk to close the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.