Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 12, 2021

Valdez Gonzalez v. Gabrielli Truck Sales, Ltd.

Judge
Paul Gardephe
Docket
1:20-cv-06009
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
FlsaEmploymentCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Valdez Gonzalez v. Gabrielli Truck Sales, Judge Freeman approved the parties’ settlement and closed the wage-law case with prejudice.

Who this affects

The approved settlement binds Luis Valdez Gonzalez and Gabrielli Truck Sales, Ltd.; the case was closed with prejudice, and the court retained jurisdiction to enforce the agreement.

What happened

In Valdez Gonzalez v. Gabrielli Truck Sales, Ltd., the parties reached a settlement in a lawsuit under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The court reviewed the proposed agreement for fairness and reasonableness.

The court approved the settlement, finding it fair, reasonable, and adequate to address the plaintiff’s claims and compensate his counsel. The court also agreed to keep jurisdiction to enforce the settlement.

Judge Debra Freeman discontinued the case with prejudice and without costs or fees to either party, and directed the Clerk to close it.

The detailed version

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

Case
Valdez Gonzalez v. Gabrielli Truck Sales, Ltd. · No. 1:20-cv-06009
Judge
Paul Gardephe
Date
Jan. 12, 2021

Background

Luis Valdez Gonzalez brought this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law against Gabrielli Truck Sales, Ltd. The parties reached a settlement in principle. Judge Paul G. Gardephe referred the plaintiff’s motion to approve the settlement to Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman, with the parties’ consent under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

Settlement review

The court conducted the fairness review required for Fair Labor Standards Act settlements. It considered the plaintiff’s explanation of why the agreement was fair, reasonable, and adequate, the agreement’s terms, the relevant circumstances, and the court’s familiarity with the action. The court found that the settlement fairly and reasonably addressed the plaintiff’s claims and compensated his counsel for legal fees, and approved the agreement.

Retention of jurisdiction

The proposed agreement stated that the court would retain jurisdiction over disputes arising from the settlement. After the court asked about this provision, both parties expressly consented to the court’s retaining jurisdiction to enforce the agreement. The court therefore retained jurisdiction for that purpose.

Disposition

Because the settlement was approved and appeared to have been signed by both parties, Judge Debra Freeman ordered that the action be discontinued with prejudice and without costs or fees to any party. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-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.