Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
Tesser Ryan
-
Order | Filed: April 25, 2024 | Entered: April 25, 2024 Navarro et al v. Building Service, Inc et al
Labor: Fair Standards | New York Eastern
Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Answer
ORDER granting 15 Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer: The deadline for Defendants to answer or otherwise respond to the Amended Complaint is extended to 05/10/2024, with Plaintiffs' consent. Parties shall consult the presiding district judge's individual rules before filing dispositive motions. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Marcia M. Henry on 04/25/2024. (JL)
-
Motion | Filed: April 24, 2024 | Entered: April 24, 2024 Navarro et al v. Building Service, Inc et al
Labor: Fair Standards | New York Eastern
Extension of Time to File Answer
First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer Amended Complaint by Building Service, Inc, Esteban Alvarado Navarro, Guadalupe Castillo Ramirez. (Aronauer, Jacob)
-
Order | Filed: April 22, 2024 | Entered: April 22, 2024 Hernandez Gutierrez et al v. Building Services, Inc. et al
Labor: Fair Standards | New York Eastern
Order Dismissing Case
ORDER granting 28 : The parties have filed a motion for settlement approval 28 and have consented to jurisdiction by a US Magistrate Judge 26 , 30 .
The Court has reviewed the parties' submissions and held a fairness hearing pursuant to Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, 796 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2015). Weighing the settlement amount agreed to here against the inherent risks and burdens that plaintiff would face in pursuing his claims, and seeing no issues regarding potential coercion, fraud, or collusion in this case, the Court finds that the settlement amount reached is a fair and reasonable compromise. See Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc., 900 F. Supp. 2d 332, 335 (S.D.N.Y. 2012).
The Court notes that the Agreement, as revised in 31 , does not contain any confidentiality clauses, non-employment clauses, or non-disparagement clauses that do not contain a carve-out for truthful statements, all of which have previously been rejected by courts in this Circuit. The Court finds that the release included in the Agreement is acceptable. See Zhu v. Meo Japanese Grill & Sushi, Inc. , No. 17 CV 3521, 2021 WL 4592530, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 6, 2021). Additionally, the amount requested in costs is reasonable, as is the one-third attorney's fees amount, which results in an acceptable multiplier of approximately two times the lodestar. See Romero v. Westbury Jeep Chrysler Dodge, Inc., No. 15 CV 4145, 2016 WL 1369389, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 6, 2016) (citing cases); Fujiwara v. Sushi Yasuda Ltd., 58 F. Supp. 3d 424, 439 (S.D.N.Y. 2014).
Given the foregoing, the Court finds that the settlement reached through arm's-length bargaining is a fair and reasonable compromise of plaintiffs' claims and that plaintiffs' counsel's request for fees is reasonable. The parties' stipulation of dismissal 32 is so ordered. The case is hereby closed. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl L. Pollak on 4/22/2024. (DB)
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