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

Corrales Alvarez v. Dennise Enterprises, Inc.

Judge
Katharine Parker
Docket
1:23-cv-02890
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
FlsaEmploymentCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Corrales Alvarez v. Dennise Enterprises, Judge Parker approved the parties’ settlement and dismissed the action with prejudice and without costs.

Who this affects

The plaintiff, Cesar Augusto Corrales Alvarez, the defendants, Dennise Enterprises, Inc. and Carmen Chamba, and the plaintiff’s counsel were affected by the approved settlement and the case’s dismissal.

What happened

Corrales Alvarez v. Dennise Enterprises, Inc. involved claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The parties agreed in principle to settle the action and asked the court to review their proposed agreement.

The court reviewed the settlement and a letter from the plaintiff explaining why he believed it was fair, reasonable, and adequate. The court approved the agreement, including its payment for the plaintiff’s claims and his lawyer’s fees.

Judge Katharine H. Parker retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement if necessary. The court discontinued the action with prejudice and without costs and directed the clerk to close the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Corrales Alvarez v. Dennise Enterprises, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-02890
Judge
Katharine Parker
Date
Sept. 5, 2023

Background

Cesar Augusto Corrales Alvarez brought this action against Dennise Enterprises, Inc. and Carmen Chamba under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The parties consented to the court’s authority under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). They reached an agreement in principle to resolve the action and submitted a proposed settlement for judicial approval.

Settlement Review

Because settlements of Fair Labor Standards Act claims require judicial fairness review, the court considered whether the proposed agreement was a reasonable compromise of the claims. The plaintiff also submitted a letter explaining why he believed the agreement was fair, reasonable, and adequate. After reviewing the submissions and the settlement terms, the court found that the agreement was fair, reasonable, and adequate both to address the plaintiff’s claims and to compensate his counsel for legal fees.

Ruling and Disposition

Judge Katharine H. Parker approved the proposed settlement. At the parties’ request, the court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement if necessary. The court then discontinued the action with prejudice and without costs, and directed the clerk to close the case.

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.