Castillo v. MG Deli Grocery, Corp.
- James Oetken
- 1:22-cv-02281
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Castillo v. MG Deli Grocery, Corp., Judge Oetken approved the FLSA settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice.
Radhames Castillo and the defendants—MG Deli Grocery, Corp. d/b/a R&C Deli Grocery; R & C Deli Grocery, Inc. d/b/a R & C Deli Grocery; and Jose R. Corniel—are affected by the approved settlement and dismissal.
What happened
In Castillo v. MG Deli Grocery, Corp., the parties told the Southern District of New York that they had settled the plaintiff’s Fair Labor Standards Act claims. They submitted the proposed settlement for court approval.
The proposed agreement provided $17,000 for Radhames Castillo, with $5,666.66 allocated to attorney’s fees and costs. The opinion does not describe the underlying wage claims or the settlement’s other terms.
Judge J. Paul Oetken found the proposed settlement fair and reasonable, approved it, and dismissed the case with prejudice. The court retained jurisdiction only to resolve disputes arising from the settlement agreement and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
The detailed version
- Castillo v. MG Deli Grocery, Corp. · No. 1:22-cv-02281
- James Oetken
- June 27, 2022
Background The court was notified that the parties had reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case. They submitted a proposed settlement for the court’s approval. The opinion does not describe the specific wage-and-hour allegations underlying Radhames Castillo’s FLSA claims.
Proposed Settlement The proposed settlement involved $17,000 to be allocated to Castillo in connection with his FLSA claims. Of that amount, $5,666.66 was to be collected for attorney’s fees and costs.
Court’s Ruling The court reviewed the proposed settlement and found it fair and reasonable under the standard identified in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. The court approved the proposed settlement at Docket Number 20-1 and dismissed the case with prejudice. The court retained jurisdiction solely to resolve disputes arising from the settlement agreement and the settlement of the action. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.