Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 26, 2024

Santos Gonzalez v. Mott Haven Bagel & Barista Cafe LLC

Judge
Rearden
Docket
1:23-cv-03723
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
FlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

Santos Gonzalez v. Mott Haven Bagel & Barista Cafe LLC: Judge Rearden approved the FLSA settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice.

Who this affects

Octavio Santos Gonzalez and the defendants in the action, including Mott Haven Bagel & Barista Cafe LLC, are affected by the approved settlement and dismissal with prejudice.

What happened

In Santos Gonzalez v. Mott Haven Bagel & Barista Cafe LLC, the parties told the court they had settled the Fair Labor Standards Act case and submitted the proposed settlement for approval.

The settlement provides for a total payment of $13,000 for the claims, with $4,333.33 for the plaintiff’s lawyer’s fees and $810 for costs.

The court found the settlement fair and reasonable, approved it, and dismissed the case with prejudice. Judge Jennifer H. Rearden 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
Santos Gonzalez v. Mott Haven Bagel & Barista Cafe LLC · No. 1:23-cv-03723
Judge
Rearden
Date
Feb. 26, 2024

Background

The parties informed the court that they had reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case. They submitted a proposed settlement for the court’s approval.

Settlement Terms

The proposed settlement provides for an aggregate payment of $13,000 in connection with the FLSA claims. It allocates one-third of that amount, or $4,333.33, to plaintiff’s counsel for attorney’s fees, plus $810 in costs.

Ruling

Applying the standard from Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., the court found that the settlement was fair and reasonable. The court approved the proposed settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice. 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 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.