Luque v. Z&S Deli Inc.
- James Oetken
- 1:22-cv-03043
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Luque v. Z&S Deli Inc., Judge Oetken approved a $20,000 FLSA settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice.
Plaintiffs Tomas Luque and Gilberto Solano Menez and defendants Z&S Deli Inc., doing business as Super Deli Market, and the other defendants were affected by the settlement approval and dismissal. The court retained limited jurisdiction over disputes arising from the settlement.
What happened
In Luque v. Z&S Deli Inc., the parties told the court they had settled the Fair Labor Standards Act claims of Tomas Luque and Gilberto Solano Menez. The proposed settlement totaled $20,000, with about 40 percent allocated to attorney fees and costs.
The court found the proposed settlement fair and reasonable and approved it. The case was dismissed with prejudice, meaning it cannot be brought again, and the court kept jurisdiction only to resolve disputes arising from the settlement agreement.
Judge James Oetken ordered the clerk to close the case. The opinion does not describe the parties’ underlying allegations or the terms of the settlement beyond the total amount and the approximate share for fees and costs.
The detailed version
- Luque v. Z&S Deli Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-03043
- James Oetken
- Sept. 19, 2023
Background
The parties notified the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York that they had reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case. They submitted a proposed settlement for court approval. The settlement provided for $20,000 to be allocated to Plaintiffs Tomas Luque and Gilberto Solano Menez in connection with their FLSA claims. About 40 percent of the settlement amount would be collected as attorney fees and costs.
Court’s Analysis
The court reviewed the proposed settlement under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. and found its terms fair and reasonable. The opinion does not provide further details about the underlying claims, the negotiations, or the settlement’s allocation between the two plaintiffs.
Ruling
The court approved the proposed settlement filed at ECF No. 32. It dismissed the case with prejudice. The court retained jurisdiction solely to resolve disputes arising from the settlement agreement and the settlement of the action. The clerk was directed to close the case.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.