Chavaloc Choror v. Abitino's Pizza 49th Street Corp.
- Figueredo
- 1:19-cv-09297
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Chavaloc Choror v. Abitino’s Pizza 49th Street Corp., Judge Figueredo approved the parties’ settlement and discontinued the wage case with prejudice.
The two plaintiffs, the defendant companies and individual defendants, and plaintiffs’ counsel were affected by the court’s approval of their settlement and closure of the action.
What happened
Chavaloc Choror v. Abitino’s Pizza 49th Street Corp. involved claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The parties reached a settlement and asked the court to approve it.
The court reviewed the parties’ second amended settlement agreement and found its terms fair, reasonable, and adequate for addressing the plaintiffs’ claims and compensating their lawyer for legal fees.
Judge Figueredo approved the settlement, retained jurisdiction to enforce it if necessary, and discontinued the action with prejudice and without costs. The clerk was directed to close the case, although the plaintiffs could ask to restore it within 30 days if the settlement documentation was not completed.
The detailed version
- Chavaloc Choror v. Abitino's Pizza 49th Street Corp. · No. 1:19-cv-09297
- Figueredo
- Dec. 13, 2022
Background
Pedro Giddel Chavaloc Choror and Renato Lopez Say Aman brought this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage-and-hour law, and the New York Labor Law against Abitino’s Pizza 49th Street Corp., doing business as Abitino’s Pizzeria, Abitino’s Pizza & Restaurant, Inc. No. II, doing business as Abitino’s Pizzeria, and the identified Abitino defendants.
The parties reached an agreement to resolve the action. They submitted an initial proposed settlement, an amended agreement, and then a second amended settlement agreement after the court directed revisions. The parties asked the court to approve the second amended agreement as fair and reasonable.
Court’s Analysis
The court reviewed the second amended agreement and the parties’ supporting letter to determine whether the proposed settlement was a reasonable compromise of the claims. Considering the relevant circumstances and the parties’ representations, the court found that the agreement’s terms were fair, reasonable, and adequate both to address the plaintiffs’ claims and to compensate plaintiffs’ counsel for legal fees.
Ruling
The court approved the settlement agreement. It retained jurisdiction to enforce the agreement if necessary. As a result of the approval, the action was discontinued with prejudice and without costs. The order provided that, within 30 days of its date, the plaintiffs could apply by letter to restore the action to the active calendar if any part of the written settlement documentation was not completed. The clerk was directed to close the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.