Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 15, 2021

Mendoza Cerezo v. HLF Enterprises, Inc.

Judge
Judith McCarthy
Docket
7:21-cv-04789
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
FlsaEmploymentCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Mendoza Cerezo v. HLF Enterprises, Judge McCarthy approved the parties’ fair and reasonable wage-settlement agreement and ordered the case closed.

Who this affects

Julia Mendoza Cerezo, HLF Enterprises, Inc., Howard Feigenbaum, and the plaintiff’s counsel, whose fees and costs the court reviewed as part of approving the settlement.

What happened

In Mendoza Cerezo v. HLF Enterprises, Inc., Julia Mendoza Cerezo sued HLF Enterprises, Inc. and Howard Feigenbaum for allegedly unpaid minimum and overtime wages and related damages under federal and New York wage laws. The defendants denied the allegations.

The parties submitted a revised settlement agreement for the court’s review, along with a joint supporting letter and records supporting the requested attorney’s fees and costs. The court evaluated whether the agreement was a fair and reasonable compromise of the disputed wage claims.

The court found that the agreement resulted from negotiations between the parties’ lawyers and fairly resolved the case, including the attorney’s fees. Judge Judith C. McCarthy approved the settlement and requested that the clerk close the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Mendoza Cerezo v. HLF Enterprises, Inc. · No. 7:21-cv-04789
Judge
Judith McCarthy
Date
Dec. 15, 2021

Background

Julia Mendoza Cerezo brought claims against HLF Enterprises, Inc. and Howard Feigenbaum to recover allegedly unpaid minimum and overtime wages, plus liquidated and statutory damages, under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The defendants denied the allegations.

The parties first submitted a Negotiated Settlement Agreement and Release for court review, with a joint letter and records concerning attorney’s time and costs. After a December 6, 2021 telephone conference, the court directed the parties to submit a revised agreement because the original referred to a separate agreement. The parties submitted the Revised Agreement on December 14, 2021.

Settlement Review

The court explained that it had to consider whether the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable under the circumstances. Relevant considerations included the plaintiff’s possible recovery, the litigation costs and burdens the settlement would avoid, the risks faced by both sides, whether experienced counsel negotiated the agreement at arm’s length, and whether fraud or collusion was possible. The court’s ultimate question was whether the agreement reasonably compromised disputed issues rather than improperly waiving wage-law rights.

Ruling

After reviewing the Revised Agreement, the parties’ joint letter, and the materials supporting the attorney’s fees and costs, the court found that the settlement resulted from arm’s-length negotiations between capable lawyers. It also found that the agreement’s terms, including approval of the plaintiff’s counsel’s fees, were a fair and reasonable resolution of the case. Judge Judith C. McCarthy therefore approved the settlement. The clerk was respectfully requested to close the case.

The opinion does not state the settlement amount or provide the agreement’s other specific financial terms.

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.