Vera v. HK Kitchen Corp.
- Katharine Parker
- 1:20-cv-08204
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Vera v. HK Kitchen Corp., Judge Parker approved the parties’ settlement and discontinued the case with prejudice and without costs.
Abel Vera, Osvlado Castro Minaya, the others they sought to represent, HK Kitchen Corp., and plaintiffs’ counsel.
What happened
In Vera v. HK Kitchen Corp., Abel Vera and Osvlado Castro Minaya brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law, individually and for others similarly situated. The parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the action.
The court reviewed the proposed settlement and the parties’ explanation of why it was fair, reasonable, and adequate. The court approved the agreement, including its compensation for the plaintiffs and their lawyers.
Judge Katharine H. Parker retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement if necessary. The case was discontinued with prejudice and without costs, although the plaintiffs could ask to restore it to the active docket within 30 days if written settlement documentation was not completed; the Clerk was directed to close the case.
The detailed version
- Vera v. HK Kitchen Corp. · No. 1:20-cv-08204
- Katharine Parker
- June 17, 2021
Background
Abel Vera and Osvlado Castro Minaya sued HK Kitchen Corp. under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. They brought the claims individually and on behalf of others similarly situated. The parties consented to the court’s authority under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
The parties reached an agreement in principle to resolve the case and submitted a proposed settlement for judicial approval. They also submitted a letter explaining why they believed the settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate. The court reviewed the submissions to determine whether the agreement was a reasonable compromise of the claims.
Ruling
The court found that the proposed settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate both to address the plaintiffs’ claims and to compensate their counsel for legal fees. The court therefore approved the settlement.
The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement if necessary. It ordered that the action be discontinued with prejudice and without costs. The order allowed the plaintiffs, within 30 days, to apply by letter to restore the case to the active calendar if any part of the written settlement documentation was not completed. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.