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

Mejia v. Boca Restaurant & Steak House Corp

Judge
James Oetken
Docket
1:23-cv-06094
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
FlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Mejia v. Boca Restaurant, Judge Oetken approved an FLSA settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice.

Who this affects

Daniel Mejia, the defendants, and the parties to the court-approved settlement.

What happened

In Mejia v. Boca Restaurant & Steak House Corp., Daniel Mejia brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act for himself and others similarly situated. The parties told the court they had reached a settlement and asked the court to approve it.

The proposed settlement provided $7,500 for Mejia’s FLSA claims, including $2,255 in attorney’s fees. The court reviewed the agreement and found its terms fair and reasonable.

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

The detailed version

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

Case
Mejia v. Boca Restaurant & Steak House Corp · No. 1:23-cv-06094
Judge
James Oetken
Date
Mar. 12, 2024

Background

Daniel Mejia sued Boca Restaurant & Steak House Corp. and other defendants individually and on behalf of others similarly situated under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The parties notified the court that they had reached a settlement and submitted a proposed agreement for approval.

Settlement Terms

The proposed settlement allocated $7,500 to Mejia in connection with his FLSA claims. The agreement provided that $2,255 of that amount would be collected as attorney’s fees.

Court’s Ruling

The court reviewed the proposed settlement under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. and found that its terms were fair and reasonable. The court approved the settlement submitted at ECF No. 32 and dismissed the case with prejudice. It retained jurisdiction solely to resolve disputes arising from the settlement agreement and the settlement of the action, and directed the Clerk of Court 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.