Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 3, 2023

Rivera v. 787 Coffee LLC

Judge
James Oetken
Docket
1:22-cv-01596
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
FlsaEmploymentCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Rivera v. 787 Coffee, Judge Oetken approved the parties’ FLSA settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs and defendants in the FLSA action, including Angel Rivera and 787 Coffee LLC, are affected by the approved settlement and dismissal with prejudice.

What happened

In Angel Rivera et al. v. 787 Coffee LLC et al., the parties told the Southern District of New York that they had settled their Fair Labor Standards Act claims and asked the court to approve their agreement.

The proposed settlement provided $130,000 for the plaintiffs’ claims, including $43,626.94 in attorney’s fees and costs. The court reviewed the agreement and found it fair and reasonable.

Judge Oetken approved the settlement, dismissed the case with prejudice, retained jurisdiction solely to resolve disputes about the settlement, and 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. 787 Coffee LLC · No. 1:22-cv-01596
Judge
James Oetken
Date
Oct. 3, 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.

Proposed Settlement

The agreement provided for $130,000 to be allocated to the plaintiffs in connection with their FLSA claims. Of that amount, $43,626.94 was designated for attorney’s fees and costs.

Court’s Ruling

The court reviewed the proposed settlement and found it fair and reasonable under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. The court approved the settlement filed at Docket Number 70 and dismissed the case with prejudice. The court retained jurisdiction solely to resolve disputes arising from the settlement agreement and the settlement of the action. It directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.

Effect

The order resolved the action through the approved settlement. The opinion does not describe the plaintiffs’ individual settlement amounts or the underlying FLSA allegations.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.