Sosa v. Bentis Fresh Bread Inc.
- Katharine Parker
- 1:20-cv-04705
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Sosa v. Bentis Fresh Bread, Judge Parker approved the parties’ labor-law settlement and discontinued the action with prejudice and without costs.
Nelson Sosa and Ruben Velez, the defendants, and plaintiffs’ counsel are affected by the approved settlement and the case’s discontinuance. The opinion does not state the settlement’s specific terms or amount.
What happened
Nelson Sosa and Ruben Velez sued Bentis Fresh Bread Inc., Olde Bakery Shoppe Inc., Anthony Bentivegna, and Louis Bentivegna under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The parties reached an agreement in principle and asked the court to approve their proposed settlement.
The court reviewed the plaintiffs’ explanation of the agreement, its terms, and the parties’ arm’s-length mediation. It found the settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate for the plaintiffs and their lawyers’ fees, but the opinion does not disclose the settlement’s specific terms or amount.
Judge Parker approved the settlement, stated that the court did not retain jurisdiction to enforce it, discontinued the action with prejudice and without costs, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
The detailed version
- Sosa v. Bentis Fresh Bread Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-04705
- Katharine Parker
- June 23, 2022
Background
Nelson Sosa and Ruben Velez brought this action individually and on behalf of others similarly situated under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The parties consented to the court’s authority to decide the case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). They reported reaching an agreement in principle and submitted a proposed settlement for judicial approval.
Settlement Review
Because the action involved claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the court conducted the fairness review required for such settlements. The plaintiffs submitted a letter explaining why the proposed agreement was fair, reasonable, and adequate. The court considered that submission, the agreement’s terms, the totality of the relevant circumstances, and the parties’ arm’s-length mediation with an experienced Southern District of New York mediator.
Ruling
The court found that the settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate both to redress the plaintiffs’ claims and to compensate plaintiffs’ counsel for legal fees. It therefore approved the agreement.
The order expressly states that it does not incorporate the settlement’s terms. It also states that the agreement does not provide for the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement and that the court made no independent decision to retain such jurisdiction.
As a result of the approval, the court discontinued the action with prejudice and without costs. It directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.