Hernandez v. 1082 K & J Laundromat Corp. et al

Filing 34

ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that: 1. The Court finds that the terms of the proposed settlement agreement are fair,reasonable, and adequate, both to redress Plaintiff's claims in this action and to compensate Plaintiff's counsel for th eir legal fees, and the agreement is therefore approved. 2. This Order does not incorporate the terms of the parties' proposed agreement. Further,the settlement agreement does not recite that this Court will retain jurisdiction to enforce its t erms, and this Court has made no independent determination to retain jurisdiction. Accordingly, nothing in this Court's approval of the settlement under Cheeks should be construed as such a determination. See Hendrickson v. United States, 7 91 F.3d 354, 359-60 (2d Cir. 2015) (finding that a federal court will retain ancillary jurisdiction to enforce a settlement only where it has (1) expressly retained jurisdiction over enforcement of the agreement, or (2) incorporated the terms of the parties' settlement agreement in a court order); see also Mao v. Mee Chi Corp., 2016 WL 675432, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 11, 2016) (finding no retention of jurisdiction in the context of judicial approval of an FLSA settlement, on the ground that & quot;[i]t is not enough that the court somehow have given the settlement its 'judicial imprimatur'" (citing Hendrickson, 791 F.3d at 358-59)). 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case on the Docket of the Court. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker on 2/7/2024) (vfr)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------------------------------X
ANASTACIA HERNANDEZ,
Plaintiff,

2/7/2024
23-CV-2317 (JGLC) (KHP)

-against108 K & J LAUNDROMAT CORP. and
PASCUAL SOTO, Individually,

ORDER

Defendants
-----------------------------------------------------------------X
KATHARINE H. PARKER, United States Magistrate Judge:
In this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, which is
before this Court on the consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Plaintiff and
Defendants, having reached an agreement in principle to resolve the action, have placed their
proposed settlement agreement before this Court for approval. See Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake
House, Inc., 796 F.3d 1999 (2d Cir. 2015) (requiring judicial fairness review of FLSA settlements).
The parties reached an arms-length agreement after mediating through the Court’s mediation
program, and, in light of the totality of the relevant circumstances, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. The Court finds that the terms of the proposed settlement agreement are fair,
reasonable, and adequate, both to redress Plaintiff’s claims in this action and to compensate
Plaintiff’s counsel for their legal fees, and the agreement is therefore approved.
2. This Order does not incorporate the terms of the parties’ proposed agreement. Further,
the settlement agreement does not recite that this Court will retain jurisdiction to enforce its
terms, and this Court has made no independent determination to retain jurisdiction.
Accordingly, nothing in this Court’s approval of the settlement under Cheeks should be

construed as such a determination. See Hendrickson v. United States, 791 F.3d 354, 359-60 (2d
Cir. 2015) (finding that a federal court will retain ancillary jurisdiction to enforce a settlement
only where it has (1) expressly retained jurisdiction over enforcement of the agreement, or
(2)incorporated the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement in a court order); see also Mao
v. Mee Chi Corp., 2016 WL 675432, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 11, 2016) (finding no retention of
jurisdiction in the context of judicial approval of an FLSA settlement, on the ground that “[i]t is
not enough that the court somehow have given the settlement its ‘judicial imprimatur’” (citing
Hendrickson, 791 F.3d at 358-59)).
3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case on the Docket of the Court.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 7, 2024
New York, New York
______________________________
KATHARINE H. PARKER
United States Magistrate Judge

2

3