Ferreira v. 425 Claremont Apartments Housing Development Fund Company
Martinez Ferreira v. 425 Claremont Apartments Housing Development Fund Company, Inc.
- James Oetken
- 1:22-cv-00841
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Martinez Ferreira v. 425 Claremont Apartments, Judge Oetken approved the Fair Labor Standards Act settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice.
Alex Martinez Ferreira and the defendants were affected by approval of the settlement and dismissal of the case with prejudice. The court retained jurisdiction only for disputes arising from the settlement.
What happened
Martinez Ferreira v. 425 Claremont Apartments was a Fair Labor Standards Act case in which the parties told the court they had reached a settlement.
The proposed settlement provided $50,000 for Alex Martinez Ferreira’s claims, with one-third collected for attorney’s fees and costs. The court reviewed the agreement and found it fair and reasonable.
Judge James Oetken approved the settlement, dismissed the case with prejudice, and kept jurisdiction only to resolve disputes arising from the settlement agreement. The court also closed the case and a motion as moot.
The detailed version
- Ferreira v. 425 Claremont Apartments Housing Development Fund Company · No. 1:22-cv-00841
- James Oetken
- Sept. 16, 2022
Background
The case involved claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The parties notified the court that they had reached a settlement and submitted a proposed agreement for approval at Docket Number 27.
Settlement Terms
The proposed settlement allocated $50,000 to Plaintiff Alex Martinez Ferreira in connection with his FLSA claims. One-third of the settlement amount was designated for attorney’s fees and costs.
Court’s Ruling
Judge J. Paul Oetken reviewed the proposed agreement under the standard described in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. and found that it was fair and reasonable. The court approved the proposed settlement at Docket Number 27 and dismissed the case with prejudice. The court retained jurisdiction solely to resolve disputes arising from the settlement agreement and the settlement of the action.
The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion at Docket Number 26 as moot and to close the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.