Mena Cortez v. La Nueva Giralda Bakery, Inc.
- Katharine Parker
- 1:23-cv-01028
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Mena Cortez v. La Nueva Giralda Bakery, Judge Parker approved the parties’ fair wage settlement and discontinued the action with prejudice and without costs.
The plaintiffs and defendants in the wage-and-hour action are affected. The approved settlement resolves the action, which was discontinued with prejudice and without costs; the court did not retain authority to enforce the settlement.
What happened
Mena Cortez and the other plaintiffs brought this action against La Nueva Giralda Bakery and the other defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage law, and New York Labor Law. The parties agreed in principle to settle and submitted their proposed agreement for court approval.
The court reviewed the plaintiffs’ explanations and the proposed settlement, including the requested attorneys’ fees and costs. The opinion does not describe the settlement’s payment amounts or other specific terms.
Judge Katharine H. Parker found the agreement fair, reasonable, and adequate, and approved it. The court stated that it was not retaining authority to enforce the agreement, discontinued the action with prejudice and without costs, and directed the clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- Mena Cortez v. La Nueva Giralda Bakery, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-01028
- Katharine Parker
- Oct. 2, 2023
Background
The plaintiffs brought an action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law against La Nueva Giralda Bakery, Inc. and other defendants. The parties consented to the magistrate judge’s authority under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). After reaching an agreement in principle to resolve the case, they submitted a proposed settlement agreement for judicial approval.
Court’s Review
The court reviewed the plaintiffs’ submissions explaining why they believed the agreement was fair, reasonable, and adequate. The court also reviewed the proposed award of attorneys’ fees and costs. The opinion does not state the settlement amount or provide the agreement’s specific payment terms.
Ruling
The court found that the settlement terms, including the proposed attorneys’ fees and costs, were fair, reasonable, and adequate to address the plaintiffs’ claims and compensate their attorneys. The court therefore approved the agreement.
The court clarified that the order did not incorporate the settlement’s terms and that the settlement did not state that the court would retain authority to enforce it. The court therefore made no independent determination to retain such authority.
As a result of approving the settlement, the court discontinued the action with prejudice and without costs. It 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.