Pavon-Hernandez v. Stacca Rest. Corp
- Alvin Hellerstein
- 1:16-cv-05045
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Pavon-Hernandez v. Stacca Rest. Corp., Judge Hellerstein vacated the judgment under Rule 60(a) after overlooking that the settlement involved a federal wage-and-hour case.
The parties to Pavon-Hernandez v. Stacca Rest. Corp.; the judgment entered in their case was vacated, and the proposed judgment will be considered.
What happened
Pavon-Hernandez v. Stacca Rest. Corp. involved a judgment entered after a settlement in a federal wage-and-hour case.
The court vacated that judgment under Rule 60(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It said the court had overlooked that the settlement was in a case under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Judge Hellerstein stated that the proposed judgment would be considered along with the court’s review of a related case concerning the scope and effect of a Second Circuit decision. The opinion does not state the terms of the settlement or the proposed judgment.
The detailed version
- Pavon-Hernandez v. Stacca Rest. Corp · No. 1:16-cv-05045
- Alvin Hellerstein
- Jan. 26, 2021
Background
The court had entered a judgment in the case. The opinion states that the settlement was in a case under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), a federal wage-and-hour law.
Court’s Action
The court vacated the judgment under Rule 60(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 60(a) permits a court to correct certain mistakes in a judgment or order. The court explained that it had overlooked that the settlement was in an FLSA case.
The court stated that it would consider the proposed judgment, identified as ECF No. 72, together with its review of a related case, in connection with the scope and effect of the Second Circuit’s decision in Mei Xing Yu v. Hasaki Restaurant, Inc., 944 F.3d 395 (2d Cir. 2019). The opinion does not state the terms of the settlement, the original judgment, or the proposed judgment.
Disposition
The judgment entered as ECF No. 74 was vacated. The court did not state that it entered or approved the proposed judgment in this order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.