Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 8, 2021

Katsaros v. Zanimad Food Corp.

Judge
Gabriel Gorenstein
Docket
1:20-cv-10691
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
FlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Katsaros v. Zanimad Food Corp., Judge Gorenstein approved the settlement and dismissed the action with prejudice.

Who this affects

Nikolaos Katsaros and the defendants, including Zanimad Food Corp.; the action was dismissed with prejudice after the court approved the parties’ settlement, and the court retained jurisdiction to enforce that agreement.

What happened

Nikolaos Katsaros brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act against Zanimad Food Corp. and other defendants. The parties agreed that Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein would decide the case and submitted a proposed settlement.

Judge Gorenstein reviewed the settlement under the required standard and found it fair and reasonable. The opinion does not describe the settlement’s terms.

Judge Gorenstein approved the settlement and dismissed the action with prejudice, 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.

The detailed version

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

Case
Katsaros v. Zanimad Food Corp. · No. 1:20-cv-10691
Judge
Gabriel Gorenstein
Date
June 8, 2021

Background

Nikolaos Katsaros asserted claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act against Zanimad Food Corp. and other defendants. The parties consented to having the matter decided by Gabriel W. Gorenstein, a United States Magistrate Judge, under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). On June 8, 2021, they submitted a proposed settlement agreement.

Settlement Review

The court reviewed the proposed settlement under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., as required for the court’s review of a Fair Labor Standards Act settlement. The court found the agreement fair and reasonable and approved it. The opinion does not state the settlement’s terms.

Disposition

The court dismissed the action with prejudice and without costs, except as may be stated in the settlement agreement. It retained jurisdiction, meaning continuing authority, to enforce the settlement agreement. The court declared any pending motions moot and requested that the Clerk 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.