Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 14, 2023

Miguel Baez Duran v. E L G Parking Inc.

Judge
Sarah Cave
Docket
1:18-cv-06685
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
FlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Baez Duran v. E L G Parking, Magistrate Judge Cave approved the FLSA settlement, dismissed the action with prejudice, and retained jurisdiction to enforce it.

Who this affects

The approved settlement affects Gerardo Miguel Baez Duran, Wilson Francisco Sanchez Cruz, E L G Parking Inc., the other defendants, and any others covered by the agreement. The action is dismissed with prejudice, and the court retains jurisdiction to enforce the agreement.

What happened

Gerardo Miguel Baez Duran and Wilson Francisco Sanchez Cruz brought this wage-and-hour case under the Fair Labor Standards Act against E L G Parking Inc. and other defendants. The plaintiffs sued individually and on behalf of others similarly situated.

The parties asked the court to approve their proposed settlement. The court reviewed the agreement, supporting materials, and the parties’ settlement conference, noting concerns about whether the plaintiffs could collect a judgment and the agreement’s payment schedule.

Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave found the agreement, including its attorneys’ fees and costs provision, fair and reasonable and approved it. The court dismissed the action with prejudice, retained jurisdiction to enforce the agreement, treated pending motions as moot, and directed the Clerk to close the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Miguel Baez Duran v. E L G Parking Inc. · No. 1:18-cv-06685
Judge
Sarah Cave
Date
Mar. 14, 2023

Background

This was a wage-and-hour case under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law governing matters such as wages and working time. Gerardo Miguel Baez Duran and Wilson Francisco Sanchez Cruz sued E L G Parking Inc. and other defendants individually and on behalf of others similarly situated. The parties consented to Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave’s authority to review the proposed settlement.

Settlement Review

The parties submitted a joint motion and proposed settlement agreement for court approval. The court explained that settlements in Fair Labor Standards Act cases generally receive a strong presumption of fairness, but courts review them under the standards required by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The plaintiffs had expressed serious concerns about collectability—the risk that they might not be able to collect all or part of a judgment—and had agreed to a payment schedule. The court also reviewed the agreement’s allocation of attorneys’ fees and costs.

Ruling

After reviewing the motion, agreement, and exhibits and participating in a lengthy settlement conference, Judge Cave found that all terms of the agreement appeared fair and reasonable under the circumstances. The court therefore approved the agreement.

The court dismissed the action with prejudice and without costs except as provided in the agreement. It retained jurisdiction to enforce the agreement. Any pending motions were declared moot. The Clerk of Court was directed to mark the settlement motion as granted, close that filing, and close the case.

What the Opinion Does Not State

The opinion does not state the settlement amount or provide the agreement’s specific payment terms.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.