Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 2, 2022

Victoriano v. Taisho, Inc.

Judge
Sarah Cave
Docket
1:21-cv-00426
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
FlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Victoriano v. Taisho, Inc., Judge Cave approved the wage-and-hour settlement, dismissed the case with prejudice, and closed it.

Who this affects

Delfino Victoriano, the other people he sought to represent, Taisho, Inc., and the other defendants were affected by the approved settlement and dismissal of the action.

What happened

Victoriano v. Taisho, Inc. was a wage-and-hour case brought by Delfino Victoriano individually and on behalf of others similarly situated against Taisho, Inc. and other defendants. The parties asked the court to approve their proposed settlement under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The parties revised their settlement agreement to address two problems the court had identified earlier. After reviewing the parties’ supporting letter, the agreement, and related exhibits, the court found that the settlement terms—including attorneys’ fees and costs—appeared fair and reasonable.

Judge Sarah L. Cave approved the settlement. The action was dismissed with prejudice and without costs except as provided in the settlement agreement; the court retained jurisdiction to enforce the agreement, declared any pending motions moot, and directed the Clerk to close the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Victoriano v. Taisho, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-00426
Judge
Sarah Cave
Date
May 2, 2022

Background

Delfino Victoriano brought this wage-and-hour action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, against Taisho, Inc., doing business as Oh Taisho, and other defendants. The parties consented to the jurisdiction of United States Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave to review their proposed settlement. They submitted a joint supporting letter and a revised Settlement Agreement for approval.

The court had previously identified two deficiencies in the proposed agreement. The parties revised the agreement to address those deficiencies and submitted the revised materials for review.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that courts generally presume that settlements in Fair Labor Standards Act cases are fair, because the parties are usually better positioned than the court to assess the reasonableness of their agreement. After reviewing the joint letter, Settlement Agreement, and exhibits, the court found that all settlement terms—including the allocation of attorneys’ fees and costs—appeared fair and reasonable under the circumstances.

Ruling

Judge Sarah L. Cave approved the settlement. The action was dismissed with prejudice and without costs except as provided in the Settlement Agreement. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the Settlement Agreement, ruled that any pending motions were moot, directed the Clerk of Court to mark the settlement filing as granted, and directed the Clerk to close the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.