Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 30, 2023

De Jesus Serrano v. Lexington Fresh Farm Inc.

Judge
James Oetken
Docket
1:22-cv-08604
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
FlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Luis De Jesus Serrano v. Lexington Fresh Farm Inc., Judge Oetken approved the Fair Labor Standards Act settlement, dismissed the case with prejudice, and retained limited jurisdiction.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs and defendants in the case. The case was closed after settlement, subject only to the court’s limited jurisdiction over disputes arising from the settlement.

What happened

Luis De Jesus Serrano v. Lexington Fresh Farm Inc. was a Fair Labor Standards Act case in which the parties told the court they had reached a settlement.

The proposed settlement provided $12,000 for the plaintiffs’ claims, including $4,382.67 for attorney’s fees and costs. The court found the settlement fair and reasonable.

Judge Oetken approved the settlement, dismissed the case with prejudice, and directed the clerk to close it. The court retained jurisdiction only to resolve disputes arising from the settlement agreement or this case.

The detailed version

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

Case
De Jesus Serrano v. Lexington Fresh Farm Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-08604
Judge
James Oetken
Date
Nov. 30, 2023

Background

The parties notified the court that they had reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act case and submitted a proposed settlement for court approval.

Proposed Settlement

The proposed settlement provided for $12,000 to be allocated to the plaintiffs in connection with their Fair Labor Standards Act claims. Of that amount, $4,382.67 was designated for attorney’s fees and costs.

Ruling

The court reviewed the proposed settlement and found it fair and reasonable under the standard discussed in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. The court approved the settlement at docket number 44 and dismissed the case with prejudice. It 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 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.