Espinoza v. Euro Design and Stone LLC
- Sarah Cave
- 1:20-cv-04381
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Espinoza v. Euro Design and Stone LLC, Judge Cave approved the wage-and-hour settlement and dismissed the action with prejudice.
The plaintiffs and defendants in the wage-and-hour action are affected by the approved settlement. The action was dismissed with prejudice, the court retained jurisdiction to enforce the agreement, and pending motions became moot.
What happened
Calvin Adony Mariano Espinoza and the other plaintiffs sued Euro Design and Stone LLC and the other defendants in a wage-and-hour case under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The parties asked the court to approve their proposed settlement. After reviewing the agreement and supporting materials, the court found that the settlement terms, including attorneys’ fees and costs, appeared fair and reasonable. The parties had revised the agreement to correct missing payment allocations and a typographical error about the number of payments.
Judge Sarah L. Cave approved the settlement, dismissed the action with prejudice and without costs except as provided in the agreement, and retained jurisdiction to enforce it. The court also ruled that pending motions were moot and directed the Clerk to mark the settlement motion granted and close the case.
The detailed version
- Espinoza v. Euro Design and Stone LLC · No. 1:20-cv-04381
- Sarah Cave
- Apr. 25, 2023
Background
The plaintiffs brought this wage-and-hour action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law governing matters such as minimum wages and overtime. The parties consented to Judge Sarah L. Cave’s authority to review the proposed settlement. They submitted a joint motion and a proposed settlement agreement for court approval.
Settlement Review
The court reviewed the motion, agreement, and supporting exhibits under the standards applied to Fair Labor Standards Act settlements. It noted a general presumption that such settlements are fair, while recognizing that the parties are usually better positioned than the court to assess the settlement’s reasonableness. The court considered the factors identified in Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc.
In an earlier order, the court identified two problems with the agreement: it did not state how much each plaintiff would receive, and it appeared to contain a typographical error about the number of payments the defendants would make. The parties submitted a revised agreement that corrected both issues. The court found that all settlement terms, including the allocation of attorneys’ fees and costs, appeared fair and reasonable under the circumstances.
Ruling
Judge Cave approved the settlement agreement. The action was dismissed with prejudice and without costs except as provided in the agreement. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the agreement, ruled that any pending motions were moot, directed the Clerk to mark the settlement motion as granted, and directed the Clerk to close the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.