Alvarez et al v. Restaurant 101 Inc. et al
SETTLEMENT APPROVAL ORDER... The Court approves the settlement. This action is dismissed with prejudice and without costs except as may be stated in the Settlement Agreement. The Court will retain jurisdiction to enforce the Settlement Agreement. Any pending motions are moot. The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to close ECF No. 49, mark it as granted, and close this case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Sarah L Cave on 8/2/22) (yv)
Case 1:21-cv-06133-SLC Document 53 Filed 08/02/22 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
JACQUELINE ALVAREZ and ANGELINA ALMONTE,
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 21 Civ. 6133 (SLC)
RESTAURANT 101 INC., d/b/a DYCKMAN EXPRESS
RESTAURANT, CIRILO MORONTA,
and ANDRES MORONTA,
SETTLEMENT APPROVAL ORDER
SARAH L. CAVE, United States Magistrate Judge.
The parties in this wage-and-hour case under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) have
consented to my jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73 for purposes of
reviewing their proposed settlement (ECF No. 51), and have now submitted a joint Letter-Motion
in support of settlement (ECF No. 49) and proposed settlement agreement (ECF No. 49-1) for
approval under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2015). Courts
generally recognize a “strong presumption in favor of finding a settlement fair” in FLSA cases like
this one, as courts are “not in as good a position as the parties to determine the reasonableness
of an FLSA settlement.” Souza v. 65 St. Marks Bistro, No. 15 Civ. 327 (JLC), 2015 WL 7271747, at
*4 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 6, 2015) (citation omitted). In addition, the plaintiff in this case has expressed
credible concerns about collectability and has agreed to a payment schedule, which “militates in
favor of finding a settlement reasonable.” Lliguichuzcha v. Cinema 60, LLC, 948 F. Supp. 2d 362,
365 (S.D.N.Y. 2013); see also Hart v. RCI Hosp. Holdings, Inc., No. 09 Civ. 3043 (PAE), 2015 WL
5577713, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 2015) (significant “risk that plaintiffs would not be able to
collect, or fully collect, on a judgment” supported approval of settlement agreement, which
Case 1:21-cv-06133-SLC Document 53 Filed 08/02/22 Page 2 of 2
“[g]uaranteed recovery from the other two defendants in the event that [one] prove[d] unable
to pay the entire settlement amount”).
Having carefully reviewed the joint letter-motion in support of settlement, the Settlement
Agreement and accompanying exhibits, the Court finds that all of the terms of the proposed
settlement, including the allocation of attorneys’ fees and costs, appear to be fair and reasonable
under the totality of the circumstances and in light of the factors enumerated in Wolinsky v.
Scholastic Inc., 900 F. Supp. 2d 332, 335 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). Accordingly, the Court approves the
This action is dismissed with prejudice and without costs except as may be stated in the
Settlement Agreement. The Court will retain jurisdiction to enforce the Settlement Agreement.
Any pending motions are moot. The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to close ECF No. 49,
mark it as “granted,” and close this case.
New York, New York
August 2, 2022
SARAH L. CAVE
United States Magistrate Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?