Galvez v. Reggiano Corp.
- Willis
- 1:21-cv-06483
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Galvez v. Reggiano Corp., Magistrate Judge Willis approved the parties’ settlement and discontinued the action with prejudice and without costs.
Paulino Galvez, the defendants, and Galvez’s counsel; the order approved the proposed settlement but does not state its amount or specific terms.
What happened
In Galvez v. Reggiano Corp., Paulino Galvez brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law for himself and others similarly situated. The parties reached an agreement in principle and asked the court to approve their proposed settlement.
The court reviewed the parties’ submissions and found that the settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate to address Galvez’s claims and compensate his lawyer. The opinion does not state the settlement’s amount or other specific terms.
Magistrate Judge Jennifer E. Willis approved the settlement. The court discontinued the action with prejudice and without costs, but allowed Galvez to ask within 30 days to restore the case if any part of the written settlement documentation was not completed. The court did not retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement and directed the clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- Galvez v. Reggiano Corp. · No. 1:21-cv-06483
- Willis
- May 12, 2022
Background
Paulino Galvez sued Reggiano Corp. and other defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated. The parties consented to the magistrate judge’s authority to decide the case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). They reached an agreement in principle and submitted a proposed settlement for judicial approval.
Settlement review
Because the action included claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the court reviewed the proposed settlement for fairness. After considering the parties’ submissions, including their letter explaining why they believed the agreement was fair, reasonable, and adequate, the court found that the agreement fairly addressed Galvez’s claims and compensated his counsel for legal fees. The opinion does not provide the settlement amount or recite the agreement’s specific terms.
Ruling and disposition
The court approved the proposed settlement. It stated that the approval did not incorporate the settlement’s terms into the court’s order and that the court had not expressly retained jurisdiction to enforce the agreement. The court therefore did not treat its approval as retaining enforcement jurisdiction.
The court ordered that the action be discontinued with prejudice and without costs. However, if any part of the written settlement documentation was not completed within 30 days of the order, Galvez could apply by letter to restore the action to the court’s active calendar. The clerk was directed to close the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.