Lucero v. Papa Hotel Corp.
- Katharine Parker
- 1:22-cv-06100
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Lucero v. Papa Hotel Corp., Judge Parker approved the parties’ wage-settlement agreement and discontinued the case with prejudice and without costs.
The four plaintiffs, Papa Hotel Corp., Manny Chadha, Paras Chadha, and the plaintiffs’ counsel were affected by approval of the settlement and closure of the case.
What happened
Lucero v. Papa Hotel Corp. was brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The parties reached an agreement in principle and asked the court to approve their proposed settlement.
The court found that the settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate to address the plaintiffs’ claims and compensate their lawyers. The court did not retain authority to enforce the settlement because its order did not include the agreement’s terms and did not expressly retain that authority.
Judge Katharine H. Parker approved the settlement, discontinued the action with prejudice and without costs, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
The detailed version
- Lucero v. Papa Hotel Corp. · No. 1:22-cv-06100
- Katharine Parker
- Apr. 17, 2023
Background
Claudia Lucero, Magdalena L. Rojas, Olga Saavedra, and Maria del Carmen Silva sued Papa Hotel Corp., doing business as Jetset Hotel and Metro Suites Hotel, and Manny Chadha and Paras Chadha. The claims arose under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage-and-hour law, and New York Labor Law. The parties consented to the court’s handling of the case and, after reaching an agreement in principle, submitted a proposed settlement for judicial approval.
Settlement review
The court reviewed the plaintiffs’ submission explaining why the agreement was fair, reasonable, and adequate, along with the settlement’s terms. Applying the required fairness review for Fair Labor Standards Act settlements, the court found that the agreement fairly addressed the plaintiffs’ claims and reasonably compensated their counsel for legal fees. The court therefore approved the proposed settlement.
Retention of authority
The approval order did not include the settlement’s terms. The agreement also did not state that the court would retain authority to enforce it, and the court did not independently decide to retain that authority. The court explained that approving a settlement does not, by itself, give a federal court continuing authority to enforce the agreement.
Disposition
As a result of approving the settlement, Judge Katharine H. Parker ordered that the action be discontinued with prejudice and without costs. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case. The order did not state the settlement amount or other payment terms.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.