Hernandez Rojas v. Midtown Food Corp.
- James Oetken
- 1:20-cv-07737
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Hernandez Rosjas v. Midtown Food, Judge Oetken approved the FLSA settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice.
The plaintiffs and defendants in the Fair Labor Standards Act case are affected by the approved settlement and dismissal with prejudice. The court retained limited jurisdiction over disputes arising from the settlement agreement.
What happened
In Odilon Hernandez Rosjas v. Midtown Food Corporation, the parties reached a settlement in a Fair Labor Standards Act case and asked the court to approve it. The proposed settlement provided $170,555 to the plaintiffs in 16 installments, with one-third allocated to attorney fees and costs.
The court found the settlement fair and reasonable and approved it. The settlement was reviewed under the standard described in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc.
Judge Oetken dismissed Odilon Hernandez Rosjas v. Midtown Food Corporation with prejudice, meaning the case was closed and could not be brought again. The court kept jurisdiction only to resolve disputes arising from the settlement agreement and directed the Clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- Hernandez Rojas v. Midtown Food Corp. · No. 1:20-cv-07737
- James Oetken
- Apr. 25, 2022
Background
The parties notified the court that they had reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act case. They submitted a proposed settlement for court approval.
The proposed agreement provided for $170,555 to be allocated to the plaintiffs and paid in 16 installments in connection with their Fair Labor Standards Act claims. One-third of the settlement amount was designated for attorney fees and costs.
Court’s Analysis
The court reviewed the proposed settlement and found it fair and reasonable under the standard described in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc.
Ruling
The court approved the proposed settlement at Docket Number 42. It dismissed the case with prejudice and 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.