Trinidad v. 62 Realty, LLC
- Gabriel Gorenstein
- 1:22-cv-00101
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Trinidad v. 62 Realty, Judge Gorenstein approved the parties’ Fair Labor Standards Act settlement, dismissed the action with prejudice, and retained jurisdiction to enforce it.
The plaintiffs and defendants were affected by approval of their settlement, dismissal of the action with prejudice, and the court’s retained jurisdiction to enforce the agreement. The order also addressed a possible attorney’s-fee application.
What happened
In Trinidad v. 62 Realty, the parties submitted a proposed settlement resolving claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The parties had also agreed that Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein would decide the matter.
The court reviewed the proposed settlement and found it fair and reasonable. It approved the settlement, dismissed the action with prejudice, declared pending motions moot, and directed the Clerk to close the case.
Judge Gorenstein retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement. The dismissal and case closure did not prevent an application for attorney’s fees under the settlement agreement; the order set deadlines for billing records and any fee application.
The detailed version
- Trinidad v. 62 Realty, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-00101
- Gabriel Gorenstein
- Mar. 8, 2023
Background
The plaintiffs brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). On March 8, 2023, the parties submitted a proposed settlement agreement. The same day, the parties consented to disposition of the matter by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
Court’s analysis
The court reviewed the proposed settlement under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. The court found that the settlement was fair and reasonable.
Ruling and case status
The court approved the settlement. It dismissed the action with prejudice, stated that any pending motions were moot, and asked the Clerk to close the case. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement.
The order also stated that the dismissal and closure were without prejudice to any application for attorney’s fees permitted by the settlement agreement. The plaintiffs had to provide their billing records to the defendants by March 10, 2023. If the parties could not resolve the attorney’s-fee request, an application had to be filed by March 24, 2023, with later briefing governed by the court’s individual practices.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.