Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 19, 2022

Perez v. Yoseiry Grocery Store Inc.

Judge
James Oetken
Docket
1:21-cv-07486
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
FlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Perez v. Yoseiry Grocery Store Inc., Judge Oetken approved a $19,000 FLSA settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice.

Who this affects

Hector Raimundo Perez and Yoseiry Grocery Store Inc., along with the other defendants identified in the case caption; the settlement also affected the allocation of attorney’s fees and costs.

What happened

In Perez v. Yoseiry Grocery Store Inc., the parties told the Southern District of New York that they had settled Hector Raimundo Perez’s Fair Labor Standards Act claims. The proposed settlement provided $19,000 for Perez, with one-third of the total settlement amount allocated to attorney’s fees and costs.

The court reviewed the proposed agreement and found it fair and reasonable. It approved the settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning the case was ended and could not be refiled.

Judge J. Paul Oetken said the court would retain jurisdiction only to resolve disputes arising from the settlement. The clerk was directed to close the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Perez v. Yoseiry Grocery Store Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-07486
Judge
James Oetken
Date
Jan. 19, 2022

Background

The parties notified the court that they had reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case. They submitted a proposed settlement for judicial approval. The agreement provided for $19,000 to be allocated to Plaintiff Hector Raimundo Perez in connection with his FLSA claims. One-third of the settlement sum was to be collected as attorney’s fees and costs.

Court’s Analysis

The court reviewed the proposed settlement under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., which requires judicial review of FLSA settlements. The court found that the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable.

Ruling

The court approved the settlement submitted at Docket Number 23 and dismissed the case with prejudice. The court retained jurisdiction solely to resolve disputes arising from the settlement agreement and the 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.