Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
Achim Home Decor Inc.
-
Order | Filed: February 25, 2022 | Entered: February 25, 2022 Martinez v. Achim Importing Company, Inc. et al
Civil Rights: Jobs | New York Eastern
Order Dismissing Case
STIPULATION Of Dismissal: Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this action is hereby dismissed with prejudice. SO Ordered by Judge Eric N. Vitaliano on 2/25/2022. (Tavarez, Jennifer)
-
Misc | Filed: February 24, 2022 | Entered: February 24, 2022 Martinez v. Achim Importing Company, Inc. et al
Civil Rights: Jobs | New York Eastern
Stipulation of Dismissal
STIPULATION of Dismissal by Migdalia Martinez (Williams, Keith)
-
Order | Filed: January 28, 2022 | Entered: January 28, 2022 Martinez v. Achim Importing Company, Inc. et al
Civil Rights: Jobs | New York Eastern
Order on Motion for Settlement 1 - Terminate Deadlines and Hearings
ORDER: The parties have filed a motion for settlement approval 20 and have consented to jurisdiction by a US Magistrate Judge 21 . Having reviewed the settlement agreement, I find that "the agreement reflects a reasonable compromise of disputed issues [rather] than a mere waiver of statutory rights brought about by an employer's overreaching." Le v. SITA Information Networking Computing, USA, Inc., No. 07-CV-86, 2008 WL 724155, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2008) (quotations and citation omitted); see also Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2015). In reaching this conclusion, I have considered, among other things, (1) that the settlement amount as reflected in the settlement agreement is substantial and fair in light of litigation risk and is within the possible range of recovery; (2) that the attorney's fees and costs portion of the settlement is reasonable and commensurate with the degree of success obtained, see Fisher v. SD Protection Inc., 948 F.3d 593, 606-07 (2d Cir. 2020); (3) that the release provided for in the agreement is limited in scope; and (4) that the settlement agreement does not impose a duty of confidentiality. For the reasons above, the terms of the settlement are fair and reasonable and otherwise satisfy the factors set forth in Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc., 900 F. Supp. 2d 332, 335-36 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). See Fisher, 948 F.3d at 600 (instructing that Wolinsky factors guide fairness inquiry). The settlement is therefore approved, and the motion for settlement approval is granted. The parties are directed to file a stipulation of dismissal by 2/18/2022. The Cheeks motion hearing scheduled for 3/8/2022 is adjourned sine die. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Sanket J. Bulsara on 1/28/2022. (Bruckner, Ian)
Stay ahead of the curve
In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.
- Archive of over 450,000 articles
- Database of over 2.1 million cases
- 62,000+ organization-specific pages.
- Daily and real-time news and case alerts on organizations, industries, and customized search queries.
- Significant legal events involving law firms, companies, industries, and government agencies.
- Learn more
TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS
Already a subscriber? Click here to login