Sotoy v. Tiberias for Students LLC

Full title: ROGELIO SOTOY, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated…

Court: United States District Court, S.D. New York

Date published: Mar 28, 2022

21-CV-7264 (PAE) (KHP) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2022)

Opinion

21-CV-7264 (PAE) (KHP)

03-28-2022

ROGELIO SOTOY, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TIBERIAS FOR STUDENTS LLC (D/B/A TIBERIAS), STERNBACH HOLDINGS, LLC (D/B/A TIBERIAS), OHREL STERNBACH, and ELROM STERNBACH, Defendants.

KATHARINE H. PARKER, United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

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), the parties, 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 have also submitted a letter detailing why they believe the proposed settlement agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. (ECF No. 35.) This Court has reviewed the parties' submissions in order to determine whether the proposed agreement represents a reasonable compromise of the claims asserted in this action, and, in light of the totality of the relevant circumstances, including the representations made in the parties' letter, the terms of the proposed settlement agreement, and this Court's own familiarity with the strengths and weaknesses of the parties' positions (as became evident during an arms-length settlement conference conducted by this Court), 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. In accordance with the parties' request, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York will retain jurisdiction over this matter for the purpose of enforcing the settlement agreement, if necessary.

3. As a result of the Court's approval of the parties' proposed settlement, this action is hereby discontinued with prejudice and without costs.

4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case on the Docket of the Court. Dated: New York, New York

SO ORDERED