Jimenez v. 2050 Valentine Avenue LLC
- Katharine Parker
- 1:22-cv-06753
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Jimenez v. 2050 Valentine Avenue LLC, Judge Parker approved the parties’ Fair Labor Standards Act settlement and discontinued the action with prejudice and without costs.
The settlement approval and case closure directly affected Severino Jimenez, 2050 Valentine Avenue LLC, the other defendants, and Jimenez’s counsel. The order discontinued the action with prejudice and without costs and did not retain federal court jurisdiction to enforce the settlement.
What happened
Severino Jimenez sued 2050 Valentine Avenue LLC and other defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The parties reached an agreement in principle and submitted their proposed settlement for court approval.
The court reviewed whether the settlement was a reasonable compromise of Jimenez’s claims, including the proposed payment of his lawyer’s fees. It found the agreement fair, reasonable, and adequate.
Judge Katharine H. Parker approved the settlement, stated that the court was not retaining jurisdiction to enforce it, discontinued the action with prejudice and without costs, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
The detailed version
- Jimenez v. 2050 Valentine Avenue LLC · No. 1:22-cv-06753
- Katharine Parker
- Oct. 23, 2023
Background
This action arose under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The parties consented to the court’s authority to decide the case. After reaching an agreement in principle, they submitted a proposed settlement for judicial approval. Jimenez also submitted a letter explaining why he believed the settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate.
Settlement Review
The court reviewed the proposed agreement to determine whether it represented a reasonable compromise of the claims. The court considered the circumstances of the case, the representations in Jimenez’s letter, the settlement terms, and its familiarity with the strengths and weaknesses of the parties’ positions. It found that the settlement terms were fair, reasonable, and adequate both to address Jimenez’s claims and to compensate his counsel for legal fees.
Jurisdiction and Disposition
The court approved the settlement. The order did not incorporate the settlement’s terms, and the settlement did not state that the court would retain jurisdiction to enforce the agreement. The court therefore made no independent determination to retain enforcement jurisdiction and stated that approval of the settlement should not be understood as retaining that jurisdiction.
As a result of the approval, the court ordered that the action be discontinued with prejudice and without costs. “With prejudice” was the court’s stated disposition of the action. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.