Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 21, 2021

Armenta Anastacio v. Ephesus Corp.

Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Docket
1:19-cv-09745
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
FlsaEmploymentCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Armenta Anastacio v. Ephesus Corp., Judge Ramos approved a wage-settlement agreement after reviewing support for estimated damages.

Who this affects

Raul Armenta Anastacio and defendants Ephesus Corp. and Yonca E. Erdick, whose settlement was approved and whose case was to be dismissed with prejudice after payment.

What happened

Raul Armenta Anastacio sued Ephesus Corp., doing business as Seven Hills Mediterranean Grill, and Yonca E. Erdick, claiming unpaid wages and related damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The case is Armenta Anastacio v. Ephesus Corp.

The parties proposed a settlement, but the court requested records supporting the plaintiff’s estimated recovery of $12,000 to $20,000. They submitted a spreadsheet estimating $2,457 in minimum-wage damages, $12,004 in overtime compensation, and $4,392 in spread-of-hours pay for the period from November 2018 through October 2019.

Judge Edgardo Ramos found the spreadsheet adequate and approved the proposed settlement as fair and reasonable. The parties must submit a stipulation and order dismissing the case with prejudice after the settlement is paid, and no later than June 21, 2021.

The detailed version

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

Case
Armenta Anastacio v. Ephesus Corp. · No. 1:19-cv-09745
Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Date
May 21, 2021

Background

Raul Armenta Anastacio brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and related provisions of the New York Labor Law against Ephesus Corp., doing business as Seven Hills Mediterranean Grill, and Yonca E. Erdick. He alleged that the defendants owed him unpaid minimum wages, overtime compensation, spread-of-hours pay, and damages for wage-notice violations.

Settlement Review

The parties submitted a proposed settlement agreement on May 6, 2021. The court had previously stated that the agreement would otherwise be fair and reasonable if the parties supported the plaintiff’s estimated recovery of $12,000 to $20,000. The court directed them to provide records supporting that estimate.

The parties then submitted a spreadsheet covering the employment period from November 2018 through October 2019. The preliminary calculations estimated $2,457 in minimum-wage damages, $12,004 in overtime compensation, and $4,392 in spread-of-hours pay, based on the plaintiff’s estimated hours and the applicable minimum-wage rates. The court found this documentation adequate.

Ruling and Disposition

Judge Edgardo Ramos found the proposed settlement fair and reasonable and approved it. The court instructed the parties to submit a stipulation and order of dismissal with prejudice after payment of the settlement amount, and in no event later than June 21, 2021. The order itself approved the settlement and did not state the settlement amount.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.