Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 9, 2019

Guzman v. Three Amigos SJL Inc.

Judge
Gabriel Gorenstein
Docket
1:14-cv-10120
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
FlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Guzman v. Three Amigos, Judge Gorenstein approved the settlement and dismissed both related actions with prejudice.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs and defendants in Guzman v. Three Amigos SJL Inc. and the related consolidated action, No. 15 Civ. 823.

What happened

Guzman v. Three Amigos SJL Inc. involved claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage-and-hour law. The parties submitted a proposed settlement, and the court reviewed it.

The court found that the settlement was fair and reasonable and approved it. The related action, No. 15 Civ. 823, had been consolidated with this case.

Judge Gorenstein dismissed both actions with prejudice and without costs, except as provided in the settlement agreement. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement, declared pending motions moot, and directed the Clerk to close the cases.

The detailed version

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

Case
Guzman v. Three Amigos SJL Inc. · No. 1:14-cv-10120
Judge
Gabriel Gorenstein
Date
Dec. 9, 2019

Background

The plaintiffs asserted claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The opinion states that the parties consented to have the matter decided by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). A related action, No. 15 Civ. 823, had been consolidated with this case for all purposes.

Settlement Review

The parties submitted a proposed settlement agreement in filings dated November 12, 2019. The court construed the settlement as supplemented by later filings and reviewed it under the standard from Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. The court found the settlement fair and reasonable.

Ruling

The court approved the settlement. It dismissed this action and the related action, No. 15 Civ. 823, with prejudice and without costs except as may be stated in the settlement agreement. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement, ruled that any pending motions were moot, and requested that the Clerk close both cases.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.