Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 5, 2023

Rivera v. Eastland Assoc Corp.

Judge
Katharine Parker
Docket
1:22-cv-00707
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
EmploymentFlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Rivera v. Eastland Assoc Corp., Judge Parker approved the settlement, retained enforcement jurisdiction, and discontinued the action with prejudice.

Who this affects

Santos Rivera, Eastland Assoc Corp., Benedetto Cupo, and Rivera’s counsel were affected by the court’s approval and enforcement provisions for the settlement; the action was discontinued with prejudice and without costs.

What happened

Santos Rivera brought this action against Eastland Assoc Corp. and Benedetto Cupo under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law, individually and on behalf of similarly situated people. The parties reached an agreement in principle to resolve the case and asked the court to approve it.

Judge Parker reviewed the proposed settlement, the parties’ explanation of its fairness, the agreement’s terms, and the strengths and weaknesses of the parties’ positions. The court found the settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate to address Rivera’s claims and compensate his lawyer for legal fees.

The court approved the settlement, retained jurisdiction to enforce it if necessary, and discontinued the action with prejudice and without costs. Judge Katharine H. Parker also 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
Rivera v. Eastland Assoc Corp. · No. 1:22-cv-00707
Judge
Katharine Parker
Date
July 5, 2023

Background

Santos Rivera sued Eastland Assoc Corp. and Benedetto Cupo under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The caption states that Rivera brought the action individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. The parties consented to the magistrate judge’s authority to decide the case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

The parties reached an agreement in principle to resolve the action and submitted their proposed settlement for judicial approval. They also submitted a letter explaining why they believed the agreement was fair, reasonable, and adequate. The court reviewed those materials, the settlement’s terms, and its own familiarity with the strengths and weaknesses of the parties’ positions.

Ruling

The court found that the proposed settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate both to address Rivera’s claims and to compensate his counsel for legal fees. The court therefore approved the settlement.

The court also retained jurisdiction over the matter to enforce the settlement agreement if necessary. As a result of the approval, the action was discontinued with prejudice and without costs. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.

Effect

The order resolved the action through the approved settlement rather than through a trial or ruling on the underlying wage claims. The opinion does not state the settlement amount or provide the settlement’s other specific financial 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.