Castillo v. La Tinfora Grocery Corp.
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:22-cv-09640
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Castillo v. La Tinfora Grocery Corp., Judge Engelmayer ordered the parties to explain whether their proposed FLSA dismissal required court approval.
Victor Castillo, La Tinfora Grocery Corp., the other defendants, and the parties’ proposed resolution of claims brought on behalf of others similarly situated.
What happened
Victor Castillo sued La Tinfora Grocery Corp. and others under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York labor law. His lawyer later told the court that Castillo no longer wanted to pursue the claims and that defendants offered to pay the lawyer’s costs and fees, but would pay Castillo nothing.
The court did not dismiss the case or approve the proposed resolution. Instead, it ordered the parties to file a joint letter by December 21, 2022, addressing whether the proposed dismissal could proceed without court approval and requiring them to identify any payment, promise, or other benefit defendants offered to secure the dismissal.
In Castillo v. La Tinfora Grocery Corp., Judge Paul A. Engelmayer directed the parties to explain whether the proposed arrangement was consistent with the court’s obligation to review private settlements of Fair Labor Standards Act claims.
The detailed version
- Castillo v. La Tinfora Grocery Corp. · No. 1:22-cv-09640
- Paul Engelmayer
- Dec. 14, 2022
Background
Victor Castillo filed a complaint on November 11, 2022, against La Tinfora Grocery Corp. and other defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York labor law. The caption states that he sued individually and on behalf of others similarly situated.
On December 9, 2022, counsel for the parties asked the court for guidance about dismissing the case. Castillo’s counsel represented that Castillo no longer wanted to pursue the claims. Counsel also stated that Castillo had received no payment from defendants in connection with the case, while defendants had offered to pay Castillo’s counsel $2,623.50 for costs and attorneys’ fees.
Court’s action
The court did not rule on dismissal, approve the proposed arrangement, or decide the underlying wage claims. It ordered the parties to submit a joint letter by December 21, 2022, addressing whether dismissal on the proposed terms would be consistent with the court’s obligation to review private settlements of FLSA claims.
The court specifically required the parties to verify whether Castillo’s dismissal would be secured by any payment, promise, or other benefit offered by defendants. If the parties concluded that court approval was required, the court encouraged them to explain why the proposed resolution satisfied the governing standards.
Disposition
The order directs further submission from the parties; it does not state that the case was dismissed or that the proposed settlement was approved. The court cited decisions concerning judicial review of private FLSA settlements, including Samake v. Thunder Lube, Inc. and Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.