Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 27, 2023

Cumatz v. Lotus West Corp.

Judge
James Oetken
Docket
1:22-cv-08153
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
FlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Cumatz v. Lotus West Corp., Judge Oetken approved a wage-law settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice.

Who this affects

Pablo Cumatz, Lotus West Corp., and Carlos Barroz were affected by the court’s approval of their settlement and dismissal of the case with prejudice.

What happened

In Cumatz v. Lotus West Corp., the parties told the court they had reached a settlement in Pablo Cumatz’s Fair Labor Standards Act claims against Lotus West Corp. and Carlos Barroz.

The proposed settlement totaled $10,000 for Cumatz. It provided for $3,199.33 in attorney’s fees and $402 in costs.

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 agreement and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Cumatz v. Lotus West Corp. · No. 1:22-cv-08153
Judge
James Oetken
Date
Mar. 27, 2023

Background

The court was notified that the parties had reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act case. The parties submitted a proposed settlement for court approval.

Settlement Terms

The proposed settlement provided for $10,000 to be allocated to Plaintiff Pablo Cumatz in connection with his Fair Labor Standards Act claims. Of that amount, $3,199.33 was designated for attorney’s fees and $402 for costs.

Court’s 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 ECF Number 13 and dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning the case was ended and could not be refiled. The court retained jurisdiction solely to resolve disputes arising from the settlement agreement and the settlement of the action. The Clerk of Court 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.