Caceres v. Tawh, Inc.
- Gabriel Gorenstein
- 1:20-cv-02082
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Caceres v. Tawh, Inc., Judge Gorenstein approved a fair-and-reasonable settlement and dismissed the Fair Labor Standards Act case with prejudice.
Daniel Caceres, Tawh, Inc., and the other defendants were affected by approval of the settlement and dismissal of the action with prejudice. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement.
What happened
Caceres v. Tawh, Inc. involved claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The parties agreed that Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein would decide the case.
The parties submitted a proposed settlement agreement. After reviewing it, the court found the settlement fair and reasonable and approved it.
Judge Gorenstein dismissed the action with prejudice and without costs, except as provided in the settlement agreement. The court kept authority to enforce the settlement, treated pending motions as moot, and directed the Clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- Caceres v. Tawh, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-02082
- Gabriel Gorenstein
- Feb. 3, 2021
Background
Daniel Caceres brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act against Tawh, Inc., and other defendants. The parties consented to have the case decided by United States Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
Settlement Review
The parties submitted a proposed settlement agreement in a February 2, 2021 filing. The court reviewed the agreement under the standard described in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. and found that the settlement was fair and reasonable. The court approved the settlement.
Ruling
Judge Gorenstein ordered that the action be dismissed with prejudice and without costs, except as may be stated in the settlement agreement. The court retained jurisdiction, meaning continuing authority, to enforce the settlement agreement. Any pending motions were declared moot, meaning no longer requiring a ruling, and the Clerk was directed to close the case.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.