Leon-Martinez et al v. Central Cafe & Deli et al
||Carlos Leon-Martinez, Fernando Meza Ramos, Victor Bautista Sanchez and Jose Antonio Lopez
||Central Cafe & Deli, Deli Cross Enterprises, Inc. and Yeon-Whan Chu
||October 7, 2015
||US District Court for the Southern District of New York
||Foley Square Office
|Nature of Suit:
||Fair Labor Standards Act
|Cause of Action:
||15 U.S.C. § 2
|Jury Demanded By:
Access additional case information on PACER
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|May 22, 2017
OPINION AND ORDER: This matter is before me on the parties' joint application to approve their settlement (Letter from Thomas J. Lamadrid, Esq., to the undersigned, dated Mar. 29, 2017 (Docket Item ("D.I.") 37); Letter from Thom as J. Lamadrid, Esq., to the undersigned, dated May 12, 2017 (D.I. 40) ("Lamadrid May 12 Letter")). All parties have consented to my exercising plenary jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c); as further set forth herein. Accordingly, for all the foregoing reasons, I approve the settlement in this matter. In light of the settlement, the action is dismissed with prejudice and without costs. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully requested to mark this matter closed. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 5/22/2017) (mro)
|April 13, 2017
OPINION AND ORDER: All parties have consented to my exercising plenary jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Accordingly, within 30 days of the date of this Order, the parties are to provide a revised settlement agreement that eliminates the foregoing issues and a rational explanation for the allocation of the settlement proceeds. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 4/13/2017) Copies Sent By Chambers. (cf)
|December 19, 2016
OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL: First, given the relatively modest size of the settlement fund in comparison to the plaintiffs' claims, I shall needsome specifics concerning the defendants' assets, such as a statement of assets and liabilit ies and whether defendants have any current sources of income. A defendant's financial condition may justify the deep discounting of a claim, but facts are required to justify the discount. Second, the release language is overly broad. Paragraph 2 appears to provide that the settlement resolves all claims or potential claims plaintiffs may have against the defendants. This language effectively makes the settlement agreement a general release. In addition, it is unclear what claims are relea sed by Paragraph 7. Among other things, Paragraph 7 purports to release "all claims referred to of identified in various correspondence to an between he parties leading up to [the Settlement Agreement]." What this cross reference reaches is undefined. Numerous judges in this Circuit have condemned the insertion of general or broad releases into FLSA settlement agreements. The settlement should more clearly and narrowly define what is being released. I shall await the parties' further submission in this matter. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 12/19/2016) Copies Faxed By Chambers. (ama)
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system.
A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
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?