Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 9, 2022

Vazquez v. Jeflo & Co. LTD.

Judge
Katharine Parker
Docket
1:22-cv-01215
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
FlsaEmploymentCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Vazquez v. Jeflo, Judge Parker approved the parties’ wage-claim settlement and discontinued the case with prejudice and without costs.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs, defendants, and plaintiffs’ counsel in this Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law action; the settlement resolves the case, subject to the court’s retained authority to enforce it.

What happened

Vazquez v. Jeflo & Co. LTD. involved claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The parties reached an agreement in principle and asked the court to approve their proposed settlement.

The court reviewed the agreement and the parties’ explanation of why it was fair, reasonable, and adequate. The opinion does not state the settlement amount or other payment terms.

Judge Katharine H. Parker approved the settlement, including compensation for the plaintiff’s lawyer. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the agreement if necessary, discontinued the case with prejudice and without costs, and directed the clerk to close the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Vazquez v. Jeflo & Co. LTD. · No. 1:22-cv-01215
Judge
Katharine Parker
Date
Nov. 9, 2022

Background

Daniel Vazquez and other plaintiffs brought this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The parties consented to the magistrate judge’s authority to decide the case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). After reaching an agreement in principle, they submitted a proposed settlement agreement and a letter explaining why they believed the agreement was fair, reasonable, and adequate.

Court’s review

Because the action included claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the court conducted the required judicial fairness review of the settlement. The court considered the parties’ submissions, the proposed agreement, and the relevant circumstances to determine whether the settlement reasonably compromised the claims. The opinion does not provide the settlement amount or describe the agreement’s specific payment terms.

Ruling

Judge Katharine H. Parker ordered that the proposed settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate to address the plaintiff’s claims and compensate the plaintiff’s counsel for legal fees, and approved the agreement. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement if necessary. As a result of the approval, the action was discontinued with prejudice and without costs. The clerk was directed 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.