Reyes v. Healthy Fresh Juice Inc.
- Sarah Cave
- 1:20-cv-05452
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Reyes v. Healthy Fresh Juice Inc., Judge Cave approved the parties’ wage settlement, dismissed the action with prejudice, and retained jurisdiction to enforce it.
The two plaintiffs and the three defendants were affected by the approved settlement and dismissal. The court’s retention of jurisdiction allows enforcement of the settlement agreement.
What happened
In Reyes v. Healthy Fresh Juice Inc., the parties asked the court to approve their proposed settlement of a wage-and-hour case under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The plaintiff had expressed serious concerns about collecting a judgment and agreed to a payment schedule.
The court reviewed the settlement agreement, supporting letter, and exhibits. It found that the settlement’s terms—including attorney fees and costs—appeared fair and reasonable under the circumstances.
Judge Sarah Cave approved the settlement, dismissed the action with prejudice and without costs except as provided in the agreement, and retained jurisdiction to enforce the agreement. The court also treated pending motions as moot and directed the clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- Reyes v. Healthy Fresh Juice Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-05452
- Sarah Cave
- Apr. 9, 2021
Background
Paul Reyes and Miguel Angel Reyes sued Healthy Fresh Juice Inc., Jaime Baeza, and Ivan Zuniga in a wage-and-hour case under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The parties consented to Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave’s jurisdiction to review their proposed settlement. They submitted a joint letter and settlement agreement for court approval under the Second Circuit’s requirement that courts review FLSA settlements.
The opinion states that the plaintiff had serious concerns about whether a judgment could be collected and agreed to a payment schedule. The court treated those concerns and the payment schedule as circumstances supporting approval of the settlement.
Ruling
After reviewing the joint letter, settlement agreement, and exhibits, the court found that all settlement terms—including the allocation of attorney fees and costs—appeared fair and reasonable under the circumstances. The court approved the settlement.
The action was dismissed with prejudice and without costs except as provided in the settlement agreement. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the agreement, declared any pending motions moot, directed the clerk to mark the settlement motion as granted, and directed the clerk to close the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.