Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 11, 2021

Garcia v. Progressive Maintenance LLC

Judge
Gabriel Gorenstein
Docket
1:19-cv-03518
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
FlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Garcia v. Progressive Maintenance LLC, Judge Gorenstein approved the parties’ fair settlement, dismissed the action with prejudice, and closed the case.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs and defendants in the Fair Labor Standards Act case are affected by the approved settlement and dismissal with prejudice. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement.

What happened

Garcia v. Progressive Maintenance LLC involved claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The parties submitted a proposed settlement agreement and an explanation supporting its approval.

The court found the settlement fair and reasonable and approved it. The action was dismissed with prejudice and without costs except as provided in the settlement agreement. The court kept authority to enforce the settlement, declared any pending motions moot, and directed the clerk to close the case.

United States Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein issued the order on May 11, 2021.

The detailed version

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

Case
Garcia v. Progressive Maintenance LLC · No. 1:19-cv-03518
Judge
Gabriel Gorenstein
Date
May 11, 2021

Background

The case contained claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The parties had previously agreed that United States Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein would decide the matter. They submitted proposed settlement materials in both sealed and unsealed filings, Docket Numbers 135 and 141.

Court’s Analysis

The court reviewed the proposed settlement under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., as required for review of certain Fair Labor Standards Act settlements. The court found that the agreement was fair and reasonable.

Ruling

The court approved the settlement. It dismissed the action with prejudice and without costs, except as provided in the settlement agreement. The court retained jurisdiction, meaning authority, to enforce the settlement agreement. It also ruled that any pending motions were moot and directed the clerk to close the case.

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.