Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 17, 2023

Hizmo v. Fiskaa, LLC

Judge
James Oetken
Docket
1:22-cv-08444
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
FlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Hizmo v. Fiskaa, LLC, Judge Oetken approved the FLSA settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice.

Who this affects

The parties to the FLSA case. The order identifies the captioned plaintiff as Aheron Hizmo but refers to the settlement allocation for Plaintiff Walsh Costigan.

What happened

In Hizmo v. Fiskaa, LLC, the parties told the court they had settled the Fair Labor Standards Act case and submitted the proposed settlement for approval.

The proposed settlement totaled $22,989.28, with one-third allocated to attorney’s fees and costs. The order states that the settlement amount would be allocated to Plaintiff Walsh Costigan, although the case caption identifies the plaintiff as Aheron Hizmo.

Judge J. Paul Oetken found the settlement fair and reasonable, approved it, and dismissed the case with prejudice. The court kept jurisdiction only to resolve disputes arising from the settlement and directed the clerk to close the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Hizmo v. Fiskaa, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-08444
Judge
James Oetken
Date
Feb. 17, 2023

Background

The parties notified the court that they had reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case. They submitted a proposed settlement for judicial approval under the standard described in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc.

Settlement Terms

The order states that the proposed settlement involved $22,989.28 to be allocated to Plaintiff Walsh Costigan in connection with her FLSA claims. It also states that one-third of the settlement amount would be collected for attorney’s fees and costs. The caption, however, identifies the plaintiff as Aheron Hizmo; the order does not explain this discrepancy.

Ruling and Disposition

The court found that the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable, approved the settlement at Docket Number 17, 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.