Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 26, 2022

Rodriguez Pastor v. Harlem 421 Food Corp.

Judge
Katharine Parker
Docket
1:21-cv-11120
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
FlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

Rodriguez Pastor v. Harlem 421 Food Corp.: Judge Parker approved the parties’ settlement and discontinued the wage-lawsuit with prejudice and without costs.

Who this affects

The order affects Rodriguez Pastor, Harlem 421 Food Corp. and the other defendants identified in the caption, and the plaintiff’s counsel. It approves their settlement, allows the court to enforce that settlement if necessary, and closes the case.

What happened

In Rodriguez Pastor v. Harlem 421 Food Corp., the plaintiff brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The parties reached an agreement in principle to resolve the case and asked the court to approve it.

The court reviewed the proposed settlement, the parties’ explanation of its fairness, and the strengths and weaknesses of their positions. It found the agreement fair, reasonable, and adequate for the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s lawyer, and approved it.

Judge Katharine H. Parker retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement if necessary. The court then discontinued the action with prejudice and without costs and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Rodriguez Pastor v. Harlem 421 Food Corp. · No. 1:21-cv-11120
Judge
Katharine Parker
Date
July 26, 2022

Background

Rodriguez Pastor brought an action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law governing wages and working hours, 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). After reaching an agreement in principle, they submitted a proposed settlement for judicial approval.

Settlement Review

The court reviewed the parties’ proposed agreement and their letter explaining why they believed it was fair, reasonable, and adequate. The court also considered the agreement’s terms, the parties’ positions, and the strengths and weaknesses of the claims and defenses. It found that the settlement fairly addressed the plaintiff’s claims and compensated the plaintiff’s counsel for legal fees.

Ruling

The court approved the proposed settlement. It retained jurisdiction to enforce the agreement if necessary. As a result of approving the settlement, the court discontinued the action with prejudice and without costs, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.