Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 6, 2021

Rosario Sanchez v. El Club Valle Restaurant Corp.

Judge
James Oetken
Docket
1:20-cv-10584
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
FlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

Rosario Sanchez v. El Club Valle: Judge Oetken approved the settlement and dismissed the FLSA case with prejudice.

Who this affects

Roselio Rosario Sanchez and the defendants, including El Club Valle Restaurant Corp., whose FLSA case was settled and dismissed with prejudice.

What happened

In Rosario Sanchez v. El Club Valle Restaurant Corp., the parties told the court they had settled the Fair Labor Standards Act case and submitted the proposed agreement for approval.

The agreement allocated $8,004 to Roselio Rosario Sanchez for her claims. It also provided for $3,996 in attorney’s fees and costs, described as one-third of the total settlement sum. The court found the agreement fair and reasonable.

Judge Oetken approved the settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice. The court kept jurisdiction only to resolve disputes arising from the settlement agreement and directed the clerk to close the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Rosario Sanchez v. El Club Valle Restaurant Corp. · No. 1:20-cv-10584
Judge
James Oetken
Date
July 6, 2021

Background

The parties notified the court that they had reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case. They submitted the proposed settlement for court approval at Docket Number 39.

Settlement Terms

The proposed settlement allocated $8,004 to Plaintiff Roselio Rosario Sanchez in connection with her FLSA claims. It provided that $3,996—one-third of the total settlement sum—would be collected for attorney’s fees and costs.

Court’s Ruling

The court reviewed the proposed settlement and found it fair and reasonable under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. The court approved the proposed settlement at Docket Number 39 and dismissed the case with prejudice. The court retained jurisdiction solely to resolve disputes arising from the settlement agreement and 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.