Perez Salguero v. CM Enterprises of Rockland Inc
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:22-cv-00411
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Perez Salguero v. CM Enterprises of Rockland Inc., Judge Briccetti directed counsel to submit a proposed settlement and explanation in this Fair Labor Standards Act case.
The order affects Erodita Xiomara Perez Salguero, the proposed similarly situated employees, CM Enterprises of Rockland Inc., Michelle Worab, and their counsel by requiring submission of settlement materials.
What happened
Perez Salguero v. CM Enterprises of Rockland Inc. is a Fair Labor Standards Act case brought by Erodita Xiomara Perez Salguero individually and for similarly situated employees against CM Enterprises of Rockland Inc. and Michelle Worab.
The court was told that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not state the settlement’s terms or say that the court approved it.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti directed the lawyers to submit a settlement agreement and a joint statement explaining its basis by June 2, 2022, as required by the cited Second Circuit decision.
The detailed version
- Perez Salguero v. CM Enterprises of Rockland Inc · No. 7:22-cv-00411
- Vincent Briccetti
- May 3, 2022
Background
Erodita Xiomara Perez Salguero sued CM Enterprises of Rockland Inc., doing business as Luigi O’Gradys Deli and Catering, and Michelle Worab. She brought the action individually and on behalf of other employees described as similarly situated. The opinion identifies the matter as a Fair Labor Standards Act case.
Settlement
The court was advised that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not describe the settlement’s terms or indicate that the court had approved it.
Order and disposition
The court directed counsel to submit a settlement agreement and a joint statement explaining the basis for the agreement by June 2, 2022. The court stated that these materials were required by Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2015). The order did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.