Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 27, 2023

Belmonth v. Lucky Dollar 207 Inc.

Judge
James Oetken
Docket
1:21-cv-08949
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
FlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Belmonth v. Lucky Dollar 207 Inc., Judge James Oetken approved the FLSA settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice.

Who this affects

Fortino Belmonth, Lucky Dollar 207 Inc., the other defendants identified in the caption only as “et al.,” and Plaintiff’s counsel, who was awarded $8,601.30 in attorney’s fees and costs under the approved settlement.

What happened

In Belmonth v. Lucky Dollar 207 Inc., Fortino Belmonth and the defendants told the court they had reached a settlement in a Fair Labor Standards Act case. The proposed settlement allocated $25,000 to Belmonth and $8,601.30 in attorney’s fees and costs to his counsel.

The court reviewed the proposed agreement and found it fair and reasonable under the standard applied by the Court of Appeals in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc.

Judge James Oetken approved the settlement, dismissed the case with prejudice, and kept jurisdiction only to resolve disputes arising from the settlement agreement. The clerk was directed to close the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Belmonth v. Lucky Dollar 207 Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-08949
Judge
James Oetken
Date
Nov. 27, 2023

Background

The parties notified the court that they had reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case and submitted a proposed agreement for approval. The proposal allocated $25,000 to Plaintiff Fortino Belmonth in connection with his FLSA claims. It also provided $8,601.30 in attorney’s fees and costs for Plaintiff’s counsel.

Court’s Analysis

The court reviewed the proposed settlement under the fairness standard identified in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. The court found that the settlement terms were fair and reasonable.

Ruling

The court approved the proposed settlement filed at ECF No. 56-1. It dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning the case was closed in a manner that bars refiling the same action. 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. The order was issued by J. Paul Oetken, United States District Judge.

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.