Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 4, 2020

Castillo v. Cornell Pace, Inc.

Judge
Sarah Netburn
Docket
1:20-cv-00060
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
FlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Castillo v. Cornell Pace, Judge Netburn approved a fair Fair Labor Standards Act settlement and dismissed the action with prejudice.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs and the settling defendants—Mount Hope Management, Inc.; Mount Hope Housing Company, Inc.; Prestige Management, Inc.; The Mount Hope Housing Company, Inc.; Fritz Jean; Glenroy Fray; and Jamal Allah—were affected by the approved settlement and dismissal.

What happened

Castillo v. Cornell Pace, Inc. was a Fair Labor Standards Act case in which the remaining parties agreed in principle to settle.

The parties submitted a proposed settlement for court review. The opinion does not state the settlement’s financial or other terms.

Judge Sarah Netburn found the settlement fair and reasonable, approved it, and dismissed the action with prejudice.

The detailed version

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

Case
Castillo v. Cornell Pace, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-00060
Judge
Sarah Netburn
Date
Dec. 4, 2020

Background

This was a case under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The remaining parties agreed in principle to settle their dispute on December 3, 2020.

Settlement Review

The plaintiffs and defendants Mount Hope Management, Inc.; Mount Hope Housing Company, Inc.; Prestige Management, Inc.; The Mount Hope Housing Company, Inc.; Fritz Jean; Glenroy Fray; and Jamal Allah submitted a proposed settlement for court review. The court reviewed the agreement under the settlement-review standard identified in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House.

Ruling

Judge Sarah Netburn determined that the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable. The court approved the settlement and dismissed the action with prejudice. The opinion does not provide the settlement’s terms or explain the claims’ underlying factual merits.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.