Passante v. Luzzo's 211, LLC
- Stewart Aaron
- 1:20-cv-04771
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Passante v. Luzzo's 211, LLC, Judge Aaron approved the Fair Labor Standards Act settlement, dismissed the case with prejudice, and retained enforcement jurisdiction.
Mario Passante and the defendants, including Luzzo's 211, LLC, were affected by the approved settlement and dismissal of the action.
What happened
In Passante v. Luzzo's 211, LLC, the parties told the court they had reached a settlement covering all issues in the Fair Labor Standards Act case. They asked the court to approve the agreement.
The court reviewed the proposed settlement and found it fair and reasonable. The agreement included a confidentiality provision, but the court found that issue moot because the agreement had been filed publicly.
Judge Stewart D. Aaron approved the settlement, dismissed the action with prejudice and without costs except as provided in the settlement, retained jurisdiction to enforce the agreement, and directed the Clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- Passante v. Luzzo's 211, LLC · No. 1:20-cv-04771
- Stewart Aaron
- Dec. 8, 2020
Background
The case involved claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The parties advised the court that they had reached a settlement in principle on all issues and filed a motion asking the court to approve it. The parties had consented to the undersigned magistrate judge deciding the matter under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
Court’s Analysis
The court reviewed the proposed settlement and found it fair and reasonable under the standard identified in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. The agreement included a confidentiality provision. The court had previously advised that it would not approve settlement agreements containing such a provision. But because the settlement agreement had already been filed on the public docket, the court found the confidentiality issue moot.
Disposition
The court approved the settlement. It dismissed the action with prejudice and without costs except as stated in the settlement agreement. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement and requested that the Clerk close the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.