Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 7, 2022

Guerrero v. Marquez Hass Holdings LLC

Judge
Robert Lehrburger
Docket
1:21-cv-07769
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
FlsaEmploymentCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Guerrero v. Marquez Hass Holdings LLC, Judge Lehrburger approved the FLSA settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice.

Who this affects

Pablo Guerrero, Marquez Hass Holdings LLC, and Maria Marquez. Guerrero brought the case individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, but the opinion does not specify the settlement's effect on those other individuals.

What happened

Guerrero v. Marquez Hass Holdings LLC was a wage-and-hour case brought by Pablo Guerrero under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated.

The parties asked the court to approve their settlement. The court reviewed the agreement and considered the risks and costs of continuing the case, possible recovery, the bargaining process, attorney fees, and potential fraud or collusion.

Judge Robert W. Lehrburger found the settlement fair and reasonable and approved it. He dismissed and discontinued the entire case with prejudice, without costs or fees to either party except as provided in the settlement agreement, and directed the Clerk to close the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Guerrero v. Marquez Hass Holdings LLC · No. 1:21-cv-07769
Judge
Robert Lehrburger
Date
Dec. 7, 2022

Background

Pablo Guerrero brought this wage-and-hour damages action individually and on behalf of others similarly situated against Marquez Hass Holdings LLC, doing business as Dulce Vida Latin Bistro and also known as Dulce Vida Cafe, and Maria Marquez. The claims arose under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

Settlement Review

The parties jointly asked the court to approve their settlement agreement and submitted a fully executed copy. The court explained that it had to determine whether the settlement was fair and reasonable and resulted from arm’s-length negotiations rather than employer overreaching.

The court reviewed the settlement agreement and the parties’ letter. It considered, among other things, prior proceedings in the case; the risks, burdens, and costs of continuing the litigation; the possible range of recovery; whether the agreement resulted from arm’s-length bargaining; the attorney-fee amount; and the possibility of fraud or collusion. The court noted that the agreement had no confidentiality restrictions, included a mutual non-disparagement provision with an exception for truthful statements, narrowly limited the release to wage-and-hour claims, and provided attorney fees within a fair and reasonable range.

Ruling

Judge Robert W. Lehrburger found the settlement agreement fair and reasonable and approved it. Because the case had been resolved by settlement, the court dismissed and discontinued it in its entirety, with prejudice, without costs or fees to any party except as provided in the settlement agreement. The court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate all motions and deadlines and 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.