Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 28, 2022

Ramos v. JJDA Enterprises LLC

Judge
James Oetken
Docket
1:18-cv-10658
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
FlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Ramos v. JIDA Enterprises, Judge Oetken approved a $7,400 Fair Labor Standards Act settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice.

Who this affects

Jose Ramos, JIDA Enterprises, Inc., and the other defendants were affected by approval of the settlement and dismissal of the case. Bronx Legal Services represented Ramos and would not receive legal fees.

What happened

Jose Ramos sued JIDA Enterprises, Inc., and other defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage-and-hour law. The parties told the court they had reached a settlement.

The proposed agreement provided $7,400 to Ramos for his claims. Bronx Legal Services, which represented Ramos, would not receive legal fees.

Judge J. Paul Oetken found the settlement fair and reasonable, approved it, 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
Ramos v. JJDA Enterprises LLC · No. 1:18-cv-10658
Judge
James Oetken
Date
Mar. 28, 2022

Background

Jose Ramos brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The parties notified the court that they had reached a settlement and submitted the proposed agreement for approval.

Settlement Terms

The proposed settlement allocated $7,400 to Ramos in connection with his FLSA claims. Bronx Legal Services, which represented Ramos, would not receive attorney fees for its work.

Ruling

The court reviewed the proposed settlement and found it fair and reasonable under the standard described in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. The court approved the settlement at Docket Number 64 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.