de Luna v. Parkoff Operating Corp.
- Sarah Cave
- 1:19-cv-05578
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In de Luna v. Parkoff, Judge Sarah Cave approved the Fair Labor Standards Act settlement, dismissed the case with prejudice, and retained enforcement jurisdiction.
Juan de Dios de Luna and defendants Parkoff Operating Corp., Netherland Property Assets LLC, and Mayer Brandwein were affected by approval of the settlement and dismissal of the action.
What happened
In de Luna v. Parkoff Operating Corp., 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 settlement agreement, supporting materials, and the allocation of attorneys’ fees and costs. It found the terms fair and reasonable and approved the settlement.
Judge Sarah L. Cave dismissed the action with prejudice and without costs except as provided in the settlement agreement. She retained jurisdiction to enforce the agreement, found pending motions moot, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
The detailed version
- de Luna v. Parkoff Operating Corp. · No. 1:19-cv-05578
- Sarah Cave
- Nov. 10, 2020
Background
Juan de Dios de Luna brought this wage-and-hour action under the Fair Labor Standards Act against Parkoff Operating Corp., Netherland Property Assets LLC, and Mayer Brandwein. The parties consented to the jurisdiction of Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave to review their proposed settlement.
Settlement Review
The parties submitted a joint letter-motion and proposed settlement agreement for court approval. The court reviewed the agreement, the supporting materials, and the proposed allocation of attorneys’ fees and costs. Applying the standards governing approval of Fair Labor Standards Act settlements, the court found that all settlement terms appeared fair and reasonable under the circumstances.
Ruling and Effect
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 agreement, declared any pending motions moot, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the identified docket entries and the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.