Villalva v. Fu Wing Garden, Inc.
- Katharine Parker
- 1:20-cv-10187
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Villalva v. Fu Wing Garden, Judge Parker approved the parties’ settlement and discontinued the wage case with prejudice and without costs.
Marino Villalva and Fu Wing Garden, Inc.; the approved settlement also addressed compensation for Villalva’s counsel.
What happened
Marino Villalva sued Fu Wing Garden, Inc. under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The parties reached an agreement in principle to resolve the case and asked the court to review their proposed settlement.
The court reviewed the settlement agreement and the parties’ explanation of why it was fair, reasonable, and adequate. It approved the agreement, including compensation for Villalva’s claims and payment of his lawyer’s fees.
Judge Katharine H. Parker discontinued the case with prejudice and without costs and directed the clerk to close it. The court will retain authority to enforce the settlement if necessary, and Villalva may ask to reopen the case within 30 days if the written settlement documentation is not completed.
The detailed version
- Villalva v. Fu Wing Garden, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-10187
- Katharine Parker
- May 12, 2021
Background
Marino Villalva brought this action against Fu Wing Garden, Inc. under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The parties consented to the jurisdiction of United States Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). They reached an agreement in principle and submitted a proposed settlement for judicial approval.
Settlement Review
Because the action included claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the court reviewed whether the proposed settlement was fair. The parties submitted a letter explaining why they believed the agreement was fair, reasonable, and adequate. After considering the submissions, the court found that the settlement reasonably addressed Villalva’s claims and compensated his counsel for legal fees.
Ruling
The court approved the proposed settlement. At the parties’ request, it retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement if necessary. The court then discontinued the action with prejudice and without costs and directed the clerk to close the case. The order provided that, if any part of the written settlement documentation was not completed within 30 days, Villalva could apply by letter to restore the action to the active calendar.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.