Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 26, 2021

Dornates v. Lenwich Management LLC

Judge
James Oetken
Docket
1:20-cv-04535
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
FlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Benito Dornates v. Lenwich Management, Judge Oetken approved the Fair Labor Standards Act settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice.

Who this affects

Plaintiff Benito Dornates and defendants Lenwich Management LLC and the other defendants named in the caption; the settlement also affects the parties’ attorneys’ fees and costs.

What happened

In Benito Dornates v. Lenwich Management LLC, the parties told the court they had settled the Fair Labor Standards Act case and submitted the proposed agreement for approval.

The agreement provided $11,725 for plaintiff Benito Dornates’s claims and $5,775 for attorney’s fees and costs. The court found the agreement fair and reasonable.

Judge Oetken approved the settlement, dismissed the case with prejudice, and retained jurisdiction only to resolve disputes about the settlement agreement. The clerk was directed to close the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Dornates v. Lenwich Management LLC · No. 1:20-cv-04535
Judge
James Oetken
Date
May 26, 2021

Background

The parties notified the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York that they had reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act case. They submitted the proposed settlement for the court’s approval.

Settlement Terms

The proposed settlement allocated $11,725 to plaintiff Benito Dornates in connection with his Fair Labor Standards Act claims. It also provided $5,775—one-third of the settlement amount—for attorney’s fees and costs.

Ruling

The court reviewed the proposed settlement and found it fair and reasonable under the governing standard. It approved the settlement at Docket Number 33 and dismissed the case with prejudice. The court retained jurisdiction solely to resolve disputes arising from the settlement agreement and the settlement of the action. The clerk was directed 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.