Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 25, 2022

Hernandez v. Gracie Mews LLC

Judge
James Oetken
Docket
1:21-cv-06019
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
FlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Hernandez v. Gracie Mews LLC, Judge Oetken approved the parties’ FLSA settlement, dismissed the case with prejudice, and retained limited jurisdiction.

Who this affects

Pablo Hernandez and the defendants were affected by the approved settlement and the dismissal of the case with prejudice. The court retained jurisdiction only over disputes arising from the settlement.

What happened

In Hernandez v. Gracie Mews LLC, the parties told the court they had reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act case and submitted it for approval.

The settlement provided $17,500 to Pablo Hernandez for his claims, including $6,101.33 in attorney’s fees and costs. The court found the proposed settlement fair and reasonable.

Judge Oetken approved the settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice. The court retained jurisdiction only to resolve disputes arising from the settlement agreement and the settlement of the action.

The detailed version

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

Case
Hernandez v. Gracie Mews LLC · No. 1:21-cv-06019
Judge
James Oetken
Date
Apr. 25, 2022

Background

The court was notified that the parties had settled this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case. They submitted a proposed settlement for court approval.

Settlement Terms

The proposed settlement allocated $17,500 to Plaintiff Pablo Hernandez in connection with his FLSA claims. The settlement also provided that $6,101.33 would be collected for attorney’s fees and costs.

Ruling

The court reviewed the proposed settlement and found it fair and reasonable under the legal standard stated in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. The court approved the proposed settlement at Docket Number 20-1 and dismissed the case with prejudice. It retained jurisdiction solely to resolve disputes arising from the settlement agreement and the settlement of the action. The Clerk of Court 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.