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

Yanez v. Mochica Group Corp.

Judge
Rearden
Docket
1:21-cv-01360
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
FlsaEmploymentCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Yanez v. Mochica Group, Judge Rearden approved a $5,000 Fair Labor Standards Act settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice.

Who this affects

Liliana Elizabeth Yanez and Mochica Group Corp. et al.; the case was dismissed with prejudice after the court approved their settlement.

What happened

In Yanez v. Mochica Group Corp. et al., the parties told the court they had settled Liliana Elizabeth Yanez’s Fair Labor Standards Act case. They submitted the proposed settlement for court approval.

The settlement provided for a total payment of $5,000 related to Yanez’s claims. 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 agreement and settlement of the action. She directed the clerk to terminate pending motions and close the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Yanez v. Mochica Group Corp. · No. 1:21-cv-01360
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 proposed settlement terms for the court’s approval.

Settlement and ruling

The proposed settlement provided for an aggregate payment of $5,000 concerning Liliana Elizabeth Yanez’s FLSA claims. The court reviewed the terms and found them fair and reasonable under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. The opinion also states that Plaintiff’s counsel represented her on a pro bono basis, so the settlement did not provide for attorney’s fees.

The court approved the proposed settlement 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 terminate all pending motions and 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.