Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 29, 2022

Storch v. 2 East 70th Street Corporation

Judge
James Oetken
Docket
1:21-cv-07549
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
FlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Storch v. 2 East 70th Street Corporation, Judge Oetken approved the $7,500 Fair Labor Standards Act settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice.

Who this affects

Chaim Storch and 2 East 70th Street Corporation; the settlement provides for $7,500 to be allocated to Storch, and the case is closed.

What happened

In Storch v. 2 East 70th Street Corporation, the parties told the Southern District of New York that they had settled Chaim Storch’s Fair Labor Standards Act claims.

The proposed agreement provided for $7,500 to be paid to Storch for those claims. His lawyer was not seeking any part of that amount. 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 about the settlement agreement. The clerk was directed to close the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Storch v. 2 East 70th Street Corporation · No. 1:21-cv-07549
Judge
James Oetken
Date
Dec. 29, 2022

Background

The parties notified the Southern District of New York that they had reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act case. They submitted a proposed settlement for court approval.

Proposed settlement

The agreement provided for $7,500 to be allocated to Plaintiff Chaim Storch in connection with his Fair Labor Standards Act claims. Plaintiff’s counsel was not seeking any portion of the settlement amount.

Ruling

The court reviewed the proposed settlement and found it fair and reasonable under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. The court approved the settlement filed at Docket Number 22 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 was directed to close the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.