Cruz v. East 168 Realty LLC
- James Oetken
- 1:21-cv-02079
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Cruz v. East 168 Realty LLC, Judge Oetken approved a proposed Fair Labor Standards Act settlement involving $60,000 for Cruz’s claims and dismissed the case with prejudice.
Libertad Jacqueline Cruz and East 168 Realty LLC, et al.; the settlement resolves Cruz’s FLSA case, subject only to the court’s retained authority over disputes arising from the settlement.
What happened
In Cruz v. East 168 Realty LLC, the parties told the court that they had reached a settlement in a case under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage-and-hour law, and asked the court to approve it.
The proposed settlement involved $60,000 allocated to Libertad Cruz for her Fair Labor Standards Act claims. One-third of the settlement amount would be collected for attorney’s fees and costs. The court found the terms fair and reasonable.
Judge James Oetken approved the proposed settlement, dismissed the case with prejudice, and kept jurisdiction only to resolve disputes arising from the settlement agreement. The clerk was directed to close the case.
The detailed version
- Cruz v. East 168 Realty LLC · No. 1:21-cv-02079
- James Oetken
- July 29, 2022
Background
The parties notified the court that they had reached a settlement in Libertad Jacqueline Cruz’s Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case. They submitted proposed settlement terms for judicial approval.
Proposed Settlement
The proposed settlement involved $60,000 allocated to Cruz in connection with her FLSA claims. One-third of the settlement sum was designated for attorney’s fees and costs.
Court’s Analysis
The court reviewed the proposed settlement under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2015). It found that the settlement terms were fair and reasonable.
Disposition
The court approved the proposed settlement at Docket Number 36. It dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning the case was closed and could not be brought again in the same form. The court retained jurisdiction solely to resolve disputes arising from the settlement agreement and the settlement of the action. 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.