Cuevas v. Elio & Sons LLC et al, No. 1:2017cv02490 - Document 23 (S.D.N.Y. 2017)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: re 22 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. ORDERED that the Revised Settlement Agreement is APPROVED as fair and reasonable based on the nature and scope of Plaintiff's claims and the risks and expenses involved in additional litigation. See Cheeks, 796 F.3d at 206; Wolinsky, 900 F. Supp. 2d at 335-36. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's counsels' fees request of $6,747.99, including $621.99 in costs, is GRANTED. The remainder of the settlement shall be distributed to Plaintiff. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 6/23/2017) (ama)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Cuevas v. Elio & Sons LLC et al UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------ X : HENRY CUEVAS, : Plaintiff, : : -against: : ELIO & SONS LLC, et al., : Defendants. : ------------------------------------------------------------ X Doc. 23 6/23/2017 17 Civ. 2490 (LGS) OPINION AND ORDER LORNA G. SCHOFIELD, District Judge: WHEREAS, on April 6, 2017, Plaintiff filed his Complaint, which alleges wage-related claims under FLSA and state law. WHEREAS, on June 1, 2017, the parties filed the Settlement Agreement and a joint letter with supporting evidence addressing the findings this Court must make in order to approve the settlement as fair and reasonable. See Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199, 206 (2d Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 824 (2016); Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc., 900 F. Supp. 2d 332, 335–36 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (outlining factors district courts have used to determine whether a proposed settlement is fair and reasonable). WHEREAS, by opinion and order dated June 19, 2017, the Court denied approval of the Settlement Agreement and ordered that any amendment to the agreement or new agreement shall strike the “no assist” provision (paragraph 5 of the Settlement Agreement). WHEREAS, on June 19, 2017, the parties filed the Revised Settlement Agreement, which strikes the “no assist” provision but otherwise is identical to the Settlement Agreement. It is hereby ORDERED that the Revised Settlement Agreement is APPROVED as fair and reasonable based on the nature and scope of Plaintiff’s claims and the risks and expenses Dockets.Justia.com involved in additional litigation. See Cheeks, 796 F.3d at 206; Wolinsky, 900 F. Supp. 2d at 335– 36. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s counsels’ fees request of $6,747.99, including $621.99 in costs, is GRANTED. The remainder of the settlement shall be distributed to Plaintiff. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. Dated: June 23, 2017 New York, New York 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
