Recarte v. Twenty-Three-One-Nought-W, LLC
- George Daniels
- 1:18-cv-08534
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
Recarte v. Twenty-Three-One-Nought-W, LLC: Judge Daniels approved the parties’ $10,000 FLSA settlement and dismissed the action with prejudice.
The parties to the FLSA action, including Jose Recarte and the named defendants, were affected by the approved settlement and dismissal. The case was brought on behalf of Recarte and others similarly situated.
What happened
In Recarte v. Twenty-Three-One-Nought-W, LLC, the parties reached a settlement in a case brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage law. The plaintiff sued individually and on behalf of others similarly situated.
The parties jointly asked the court to approve their settlement. The agreement provided for payment of $10,000, including all attorney fees and costs.
Judge Daniels approved the settlement and dismissed the action with prejudice and without costs to any party, except as provided in the approved settlement and order. The clerk was directed to close the case.
The detailed version
- Recarte v. Twenty-Three-One-Nought-W, LLC · No. 1:18-cv-08534
- George Daniels
- July 13, 2022
Background
Jose Recarte brought this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) action individually and on behalf of others similarly situated against Sixteen Elliot Inc. doing business as Sixteen Elliot Place, Martin Rooney, and Twenty-Three-One-Nought-W LLC doing business as 2310 Walton Avenue. The opinion states that the parties reached a settlement and jointly requested court approval.
Settlement Review
The court reviewed the settlement agreement under the standard described in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. The agreement required payment of $10,000, inclusive of all attorney fees and costs.
Ruling
The court granted the parties’ request for settlement approval. It approved the $10,000 settlement agreement and ordered that the action be dismissed with prejudice and without costs to any party, except to the extent provided in the settlement agreement and the order. The clerk was directed to close the case.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.