Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 24, 2021

Huerta v. Aura Wellness Spa Corp.

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:19-cv-11095
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
FlsaFee PetitionCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Huerta v. Aura Wellness, Judge Vyskocil approved a Fair Labor Standards Act settlement, dismissed the action with prejudice, and approved fees and costs.

Who this affects

Emiliano Huerta and the defendants, including Aura Wellness Spa Corp.; the order also approved fees and costs for Huerta’s attorneys.

What happened

In Huerta v. Aura Wellness Spa Corp., Emiliano Huerta alleged that defendants failed to pay him overtime for locker-room maintenance work at their spa. He brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

The parties reached a settlement. The court reviewed the proposed settlement and found it fair and reasonable, considering Huerta’s possible recovery, the risks and costs of continuing the case, and the difficulty of collecting a larger judgment.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil dismissed the action with prejudice, approved $5,501.33 in attorney fees and $496 in costs, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Huerta v. Aura Wellness Spa Corp. · No. 1:19-cv-11095
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
Feb. 24, 2021

Background

Emiliano Huerta brought this action individually and on behalf of others similarly situated against Aura Wellness Spa Corp. and other defendants. He asserted claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the federal wage-and-hour statute, and the New York Labor Law. Huerta alleged that defendants employed him to perform locker-room maintenance at their spa, that he often worked overtime, and that he was not paid the required overtime wages.

Huerta alleged approximately $27,840 in unpaid overtime wages and at least $10,784.25 based on his other claims, for a total of more than $38,624.25. These figures were allegations of the claimed damages; the opinion does not state the total settlement amount.

Settlement Review

The parties reached a settlement and submitted a letter explaining why it was fair, the settlement agreement, and Huerta’s attorneys’ time records. Because the action included an FLSA claim, the court was required to review and approve the settlement.

The court considered the factors used to evaluate an FLSA settlement, including Huerta’s possible recovery, the burdens and expenses of continuing the litigation, the litigation risks, whether experienced counsel negotiated at arm’s length, and the possibility of fraud or collusion. The court found the proposed settlement fair and reasonable. It specifically considered Huerta’s alleged damages, his challenges in proving the case at trial, and the challenges he might face in collecting a larger judgment.

Disposition

The court ordered that the action be dismissed with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. The court also found that the requested attorney fees were reasonable and approved $5,501.33 in fees and $496 in costs. The court ordered that all other dates and deadlines be adjourned and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil’s order resolved the action through the approved settlement; it did not decide whether defendants actually violated the FLSA or New York Labor Law.

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.