Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 9, 2022

Alvarez v. Restaurant 101 Inc.

Judge
Sarah Cave
Docket
1:21-cv-06133
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
FlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Alvarez v. Restaurant 101, Judge Engelmayer reopened the wage case and ordered the parties to submit their settlement for required review.

Who this affects

Jacqueline Alvarez, Angelina Almonte, Restaurant 101 Inc. doing business as Dyckman Express Restaurant, and the other defendants are affected by the order requiring submission and court review of the proposed settlement.

What happened

In Alvarez v. Restaurant 101 Inc., the parties told the court they had agreed on all issues during court-ordered mediation in this wage-and-hour case.

Because the case was brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the court said it had to review the proposed settlement under a Second Circuit decision requiring court review of such settlements.

Judge Paul A. Engelmayer ordered the parties to submit their proposed settlement and a legal memorandum by May 31, 2022, and directed the clerk to reopen the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Alvarez v. Restaurant 101 Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-06133
Judge
Sarah Cave
Date
May 9, 2022

Background

Jacqueline Alvarez and Angelina Almonte brought this wage-and-hour case under the Fair Labor Standards Act against Restaurant 101 Inc., doing business as Dyckman Express Restaurant, and other defendants. On May 6, 2022, the parties reached an agreement on all issues during court-ordered mediation.

Court’s action

The court explained that settlements in Fair Labor Standards Act cases require court review under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. The court therefore directed the parties to submit their proposed settlement by May 31, 2022, together with a legal memorandum explaining why the settlement should be approved under that decision. The court also directed the clerk to reopen the case.

The order did not approve or reject the settlement. It required the parties to provide materials for the court’s review.

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.