Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 8, 2024

Heras v. CT Custom Home Builders LLC

Judge
Judith McCarthy
Docket
7:23-cv-04166
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
FlsaEmploymentCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Heras v. CT Custom Home Builders, Judge McCarthy approved the parties’ settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice.

Who this affects

Fabian Heras, CT Custom Home Builders LLC, Carlos A. Tenezaca, and Heras’s counsel were affected by the approved settlement, attorney’s-fee approval, and dismissal with prejudice.

What happened

Fabian Heras sued CT Custom Home Builders LLC and Carlos A. Tenezaca, alleging violations of federal wage law and New York labor law. The parties later submitted a settlement agreement for the court’s approval.

The court reviewed the agreement, the parties’ early settlement discussions, and the risks and costs of continuing the case. After asking whether Heras understood how the settlement proceeds would be distributed, the court received an affidavit confirming his understanding and approval. The court also found that the agreement’s approval of his counsel’s fees at 33% was fair and reasonable.

Judge Judith C. McCarthy approved the settlement agreement, dismissed the matter with prejudice, directed the Clerk to terminate the pending motion, and closed the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Heras v. CT Custom Home Builders LLC · No. 7:23-cv-04166
Judge
Judith McCarthy
Date
Apr. 8, 2024

Background

Fabian Heras brought the action against CT Custom Home Builders LLC and Carlos A. Tenezaca. He alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage law, and the New York Labor Law. The parties consented to the jurisdiction of Judith C. McCarthy, a United States Magistrate Judge, for all purposes.

On March 5, 2024, the parties submitted a Settlement Agreement and General Release, a motion asking the court to approve it, and an affidavit describing attorney’s fees, hourly rates, tasks, and costs. During a March 22 telephone conference, the court asked whether Heras understood how the settlement proceeds would be distributed because the agreement was unclear on that point. His counsel confirmed that Heras understood the distribution amounts. The court then directed Heras to submit an affidavit, which he filed on March 25 and which stated his understanding and approval of the distribution.

Settlement Review

The court considered whether the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable under the circumstances. It noted that the parties had engaged in early settlement discussions and sought to resolve the case before extensive discovery. The court determined that this approach conserved attorney time and judicial resources. Based on its review of the record, the court found that the agreement—including approval of Heras’s counsel’s fees in the amount of 33%—was a fair and reasonable resolution of the case.

Disposition

The court approved the Settlement Agreement and dismissed the matter with prejudice. It also directed the Clerk to terminate the pending motion at Docket No. 35 and close the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-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.