Varela-Itzmoyotl v. 94 Corner Cafe Corp.
- Debra Freeman
- 1:17-cv-07620
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Varela-Itzmoyotl v. 94 Corner Cafe, Judge Freeman approved the parties’ settlement and discontinued the Fair Labor Standards Act case with prejudice.
The plaintiff, the defendants, and the plaintiff’s counsel were affected by approval of the settlement. The case was discontinued with prejudice, without costs or fees to any party, and closed; the federal court did not retain authority to enforce the settlement.
What happened
Jose Mariano Varela-Itzmoyotl sued 94 Corner Cafe Corp. and other defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The parties reached an agreement in principle to resolve the case and asked the court to approve their settlement.
The court reviewed the proposed agreement, the plaintiff’s explanation of its fairness, and the circumstances of the case. It found that the settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate to address the plaintiff’s claims and pay the plaintiff’s lawyers’ fees.
Judge Debra Freeman approved the settlement, but did not retain authority to enforce it. The action was discontinued with prejudice, without costs or fees to any party, and the Clerk was directed to close the case.
The detailed version
- Varela-Itzmoyotl v. 94 Corner Cafe Corp. · No. 1:17-cv-07620
- Debra Freeman
- Mar. 31, 2022
Background
Jose Mariano Varela-Itzmoyotl brought this action individually and on behalf of others similarly situated under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The parties consented to have the case decided by the magistrate judge. After reaching an agreement in principle, they submitted a proposed settlement for judicial approval.
Settlement Review
Because the case involved claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the court reviewed the settlement for fairness. The court considered the plaintiff’s letter explaining why the agreement was fair, reasonable, and adequate, the terms of the proposed agreement, the circumstances of the case, and the court’s familiarity with the matter. The court found that the settlement fairly and reasonably addressed the plaintiff’s claims and fairly compensated the plaintiff’s counsel for legal fees. The court therefore approved the agreement.
Enforcement and Disposition
The court stated that its order did not incorporate the settlement’s terms and that it had not independently retained authority to enforce the agreement. The settlement included signed confessions of judgment by defendants Mohinder Singh and Sukhjinder Singh, which could be entered as New York state-court judgments if they failed to make required installment payments. The court explained that approval of the settlement did not itself mean that the federal court retained enforcement authority.
As a result of approving the executed settlement, the court discontinued the action with prejudice and without costs or fees to any party. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.