Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 12, 2024

Santos v. 852 Eighth Gotham Pizza Inc.

Judge
Katharine Parker
Docket
1:21-cv-08304
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
EmploymentFlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Santos v. 852 Eighth Gotham Pizza, Judge Parker approved the parties’ settlement, retained enforcement jurisdiction, and discontinued the wage case with prejudice.

Who this affects

Miguel Maria Santos, 852 Eighth Gotham Pizza, Inc., the other defendants, and Santos’s counsel are affected by the approved settlement and the case’s closure.

What happened

In Santos v. 852 Eighth Gotham Pizza, Inc., the parties reached an agreement in principle to resolve Miguel Maria Santos’s claims under federal and New York wage laws. They asked the court to review and approve their proposed settlement.

The court found that the settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate to address Santos’s claims and compensate his lawyer for legal fees. The opinion does not state the settlement amount or specific payment terms.

Judge Katharine H. Parker approved the settlement, retained jurisdiction to enforce it if necessary, and discontinued the action with prejudice and without costs. The clerk was directed to close the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Santos v. 852 Eighth Gotham Pizza Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-08304
Judge
Katharine Parker
Date
Jan. 12, 2024

Background

Miguel Maria Santos brought this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law against 852 Eighth Gotham Pizza, Inc. and other defendants. The parties consented to the magistrate judge’s authority to decide the case and, after reaching an agreement in principle, submitted a proposed settlement for court approval.

Settlement Review

Because the case included claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the court reviewed whether the proposed settlement was fair. After considering Santos’s letter explaining why he believed the agreement was fair, reasonable, and adequate, along with the settlement’s terms and the surrounding circumstances, the court found that the agreement fairly addressed his claims and provided reasonable compensation for his counsel’s legal fees.

Ruling

Judge Katharine H. Parker approved the proposed settlement. At the parties’ request, the court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement if necessary. The court then ordered that the action be discontinued with prejudice and without costs and directed the clerk to close the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.