Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 5, 2021

Illescas v. Four Green Fields LLC

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:20-cv-09426
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
FlsaEmploymentCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Illescas v. Four Green Fields, Judge Abrams approved the FLSA settlement and dismissed the action with prejudice.

Who this affects

Jose Illescas, Four Green Fields LLC, doing business as Agave Restaurant, Jack Sobel, and Illescas’s counsel. The approved agreement provided Illescas $2,600, counsel $1,400, released specified wage-related claims against the defendants, and ended the action with prejudice.

What happened

In Illescas v. Four Green Fields LLC, Jose Illescas sued Four Green Fields LLC, doing business as Agave Restaurant, and Jack Sobel under federal and New York wage laws. He claimed he was not paid for his final four weeks of employment and was owed about $2,960.32.

The parties agreed to settle for $4,000. Illescas would receive $2,600, and his lawyer would receive $1,400, including reimbursement for $500 in litigation costs. The agreement released claims for unpaid wages and related damages under the federal and New York wage laws, but did not include confidentiality or non-disparagement provisions.

Judge Ronnie Abrams found the settlement and attorney’s fees fair and reasonable, approved the agreement, and dismissed the action with prejudice. She also 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
Illescas v. Four Green Fields LLC · No. 1:20-cv-09426
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
Apr. 5, 2021

Background

Jose Illescas brought this action on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated against Four Green Fields LLC, doing business as Agave Restaurant, and Jack Sobel. He asserted claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (NYLL). Illescas claimed that he was not paid for the last four weeks of his employment and estimated that he was owed approximately $2,960.32.

The parties reached an agreement to resolve the litigation and asked the court to approve it. Because the FLSA protects employees’ wage rights, the court said district courts must review FLSA settlements for fairness and reasonableness.

Settlement Terms and Court’s Analysis

The settlement required payment of $4,000. Illescas would receive $2,600, while his counsel would receive $1,400. Counsel had incurred $500 in litigation costs, leaving counsel with roughly 25 percent of the recovery after expenses. The court found the total settlement and the attorney’s fees reasonable, particularly because the restaurant was experiencing financial difficulties related to the COVID-19 pandemic and continued litigation created uncertainty about recovering damages.

The agreement’s release of claims was limited to unpaid wages and related damages arising under the FLSA, the NYLL, and related regulations. The court found that the release covered the wage-and-hour issues asserted in the action or related claims that could have been asserted, rather than unrelated or unknown claims. The agreement contained no confidentiality or non-disparagement provisions.

Disposition

Judge Ronnie Abrams approved the settlement agreement and dismissed this action with prejudice in accordance with the agreement. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case. The order approved the settlement; it did not decide the underlying wage claims after a trial or other merits determination.

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.