Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 16, 2024

Reyes v. Law Offices of Sandy Khine, PC

Judge
James Oetken
Docket
1:23-cv-07957
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
FlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Reyes v. Law Offices of Sandy Khine, PC, Judge Oetken approved the FLSA settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice.

Who this affects

Montserrat Reyes and the defendants were affected by approval of their settlement. The settlement allocated $20,000 to Reyes, with one-third designated as attorney’s fees and $555.19 for counsel’s costs and expenses.

What happened

Reyes v. Law Offices of Sandy Khine, PC was a Fair Labor Standards Act case in which the parties told the court they had reached a settlement.

The proposed settlement provided $20,000 for Montserrat Reyes’s claims. Her lawyer would receive one-third of that amount in fees, plus $555.19 in costs and expenses.

The court found the settlement fair and reasonable, approved it, and dismissed the case with prejudice. J. Paul Oetken also retained jurisdiction only to resolve disputes arising from the settlement and directed the clerk to close the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Reyes v. Law Offices of Sandy Khine, PC · No. 1:23-cv-07957
Judge
James Oetken
Date
Jan. 16, 2024

Background

The parties notified the court that they had settled this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case and submitted a proposed settlement for court approval. The proposed agreement allocated $20,000 to Plaintiff Montserrat Reyes in connection with her FLSA claims. Plaintiff’s counsel would receive one-third of the settlement as attorney’s fees, plus $555.19 for costs and expenses.

Court’s analysis

The court reviewed the proposed settlement and found its terms fair and reasonable under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc.

Disposition

The court approved the proposed settlement filed at ECF No. 17 and dismissed the case with prejudice. The court retained jurisdiction only 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.