Alvarez v. Restaurant 101 Inc.
- Sarah Cave
- 1:21-cv-06133
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Alvarez v. Restaurant 101, Judge Cave approved the FLSA settlement, dismissed the action with prejudice, and retained jurisdiction to enforce it.
The plaintiffs and defendants are affected: the settlement was approved, the action was dismissed with prejudice, and the court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement.
What happened
In Alvarez v. Restaurant 101 Inc., the parties asked the court to approve their proposed settlement of a wage-and-hour case under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law governing minimum wages and overtime.
The court reviewed the settlement agreement and supporting materials. It found that all settlement terms, including the allocation of attorneys’ fees and costs, appeared fair and reasonable under the circumstances. The court also noted concerns about collecting a judgment and the parties’ agreement to a payment schedule.
Judge Sarah L. Cave approved the settlement. The court dismissed the action with prejudice and without costs except as provided in the settlement agreement, retained jurisdiction to enforce the agreement, and declared any pending motions moot. The clerk was asked to close the case.
The detailed version
- Alvarez v. Restaurant 101 Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-06133
- Sarah Cave
- Aug. 2, 2022
Background
Jacqueline Alvarez and Angelina Almonte brought a wage-and-hour case under the Fair Labor Standards Act against Restaurant 101 Inc., doing business as Dyckman Express Restaurant, and Cirilo Moronta and Andres Moronta. The parties consented to Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave’s jurisdiction to review their proposed settlement.
Settlement Review
The parties submitted a joint letter-motion and proposed settlement agreement for approval. The court applied the standard used for reviewing Fair Labor Standards Act settlements. It stated that such settlements generally receive a strong presumption of fairness and noted credible concerns about collectability, as well as the parties’ agreement to a payment schedule. After reviewing the proposed agreement and exhibits, the court found that all terms, including attorneys’ fees and costs, appeared fair and reasonable under the totality of the circumstances.
Ruling and Effect
The court approved the settlement. It dismissed the action with prejudice and without costs except as provided in the settlement agreement. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the agreement, declared any pending motions moot, and requested that the clerk mark the settlement motion as granted and close the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.