Alfonso v. 384 3rd Ave Rest LLC
- Sarah Cave
- 1:21-cv-05316
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Alfonso v. 384 3rd Ave Rest LLC, Judge Cave approved the parties’ FLSA settlement, dismissed the action with prejudice, and retained enforcement jurisdiction.
Jhonatan Martinez Alfonso, 384 3rd Ave Rest LLC, and Kevin Doherty; the settlement approval and dismissal ended this action and left the Court with jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement.
What happened
Jhonatan Martinez Alfonso sued 384 3rd Ave Rest LLC and Kevin Doherty in a wage-and-hour case under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage law. The parties agreed that Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave could review their proposed settlement.
After the Court identified defects in the parties’ initial submission, they filed additional materials and an executed settlement agreement. The Court found that the settlement’s terms, including attorney fees and costs, appeared fair and reasonable.
Judge Sarah L. Cave approved the settlement. The action was dismissed with prejudice and without costs except as provided in the settlement agreement; the Court retained jurisdiction to enforce the agreement, treated pending motions as moot, and directed the Clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- Alfonso v. 384 3rd Ave Rest LLC · No. 1:21-cv-05316
- Sarah Cave
- Aug. 2, 2022
Background
This was a wage-and-hour case brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), a federal law governing employee wages and working hours. The parties consented to Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave’s authority to review their proposed settlement. They submitted a joint letter and proposed settlement agreement for approval.
Settlement Review
The Court initially identified several defects in the parties’ submission. The parties responded with a supplemental letter and an executed settlement agreement. After reviewing those materials, the Court found that all settlement terms—including the allocation of attorney fees and costs—appeared fair and reasonable under the circumstances and the factors used to evaluate FLSA settlements. The supplemental letter also resolved the questions the Court had raised.
Ruling and Disposition
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 settlement agreement, ruled that any pending motions were moot, directed the Clerk to mark the relevant filing as granted, and directed the Clerk to close the case. The opinion does not state the settlement amount or describe the underlying wage claims in further detail.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.