Abad-Herrera v. Formula 1 Cleaners, Inc.
- James Oetken
- 1:21-cv-01905
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Abad-Herrera v. Formula 1 Cleaners, Judge Oetken approved the FLSA settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice.
The ruling directly affected Micaela Abad-Herrera and the defendants by approving their settlement and closing the case. The caption also refers to others similarly situated, but the opinion does not explain their treatment.
What happened
Abad-Herrera v. Formula 1 Cleaners, Inc. was a Fair Labor Standards Act case brought by Micaela Abad-Herrera individually and on behalf of others similarly situated. The parties told the court they had reached a settlement.
The proposed settlement provided $9,000 for Micaela Abad-Herrera in connection with the FLSA claims. One-third of the settlement amount was designated for attorney’s fees and costs.
Judge Oetken found the proposed settlement fair and reasonable, approved it, and dismissed the case with prejudice. The court retained jurisdiction only to resolve disputes arising from the settlement agreement and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
The detailed version
- Abad-Herrera v. Formula 1 Cleaners, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-01905
- James Oetken
- Jan. 19, 2022
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 court approval. The caption identifies Micaela Abad-Herrera as bringing the case individually and on behalf of others similarly situated.
Settlement Terms
The proposed settlement allocated $9,000 to Plaintiff Micaela Abad-Herrera in connection with the FLSA claims. One-third of the settlement sum was designated for attorney’s fees and costs.
Court’s Ruling
The court reviewed the proposed settlement and found it fair and reasonable under the standard cited in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. The court approved the proposed settlement at Docket Number 39 and dismissed the case with prejudice. It retained jurisdiction solely to resolve disputes arising from the settlement agreement and settlement of the action. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.