Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 7, 2023

Perez v. Standup 236 LLC

Judge
Sarah Cave
Docket
1:22-cv-06821
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
FlsaEmploymentCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Perez v. Standup 236 LLC, Judge Cave approved the FLSA settlement, dismissed the action with prejudice, and retained jurisdiction to enforce it.

Who this affects

The settlement approval affected plaintiffs Francisco Perez and Elisario Perez and defendants Standup 236 LLC doing business as Stand Up NY, Dani Zoldan, and Gabriel Waldman. The action was dismissed with prejudice, subject to the settlement agreement, and the court retained jurisdiction to enforce that agreement.

What happened

Francisco Perez and Elisario Perez brought a wage-and-hour case under the Fair Labor Standards Act against Standup 236 LLC, Dani Zoldan, and Gabriel Waldman. The parties asked the court to review their proposed settlement.

The court reviewed the agreement and supporting materials, including the allocation of attorneys’ fees and costs. It found that all settlement terms appeared fair and reasonable and approved the agreement; the parties also confirmed that the agreement had been translated into Spanish for the plaintiffs before they signed it.

Judge Sarah L. Cave dismissed the action with prejudice and without costs except as provided in the agreement. She retained jurisdiction to enforce the agreement, found any pending motions moot, directed the clerk to mark the settlement motion granted, and ordered the case closed.

The detailed version

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

Case
Perez v. Standup 236 LLC · No. 1:22-cv-06821
Judge
Sarah Cave
Date
July 7, 2023

Background

Francisco Perez and Elisario Perez were the plaintiffs in a wage-and-hour action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The defendants were Standup 236 LLC doing business as Stand Up NY, Dani Zoldan, and Gabriel Waldman. The parties consented to Judge Cave’s authority to review the proposed settlement under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73.

The parties submitted a joint letter-motion seeking approval of their proposed settlement and a proposed settlement agreement. At the court’s request, they confirmed that the agreement had been translated into Spanish for the plaintiffs before execution and submitted a copy of the executed stipulation of dismissal.

Settlement approval

The court reviewed the motion, agreement, and accompanying exhibits under the required review for FLSA settlements. It found that all terms of the agreement, including the allocation of attorneys’ fees and costs, appeared fair and reasonable under the circumstances. The court therefore approved the agreement.

Disposition

The court dismissed the action with prejudice and without costs except as provided in the agreement. It retained jurisdiction to enforce the agreement, found any pending motions moot, directed the clerk to mark the settlement motion, ECF No. 28, as granted, and ordered the case closed.

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.