Pla et al v. Renaissance Equity Holdings, L.L.C. et al
| Amado S. Pla, Kevin Joseph and Yishmael Levi |
| My Guard Security Corp., David Bistricer, Rafael Garcia, Marc Anthony Garcia, John Murphy, Renaissance Equity Holdings, L.L.C. and Clipper Equity, L.L.C. |
| 1:2012cv05268 |
| July 6, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| Kings |
| Jesse M. Furman |
| Fair Labor Standards Act |
| 29 U.S.C. ยง 201 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
110
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 104 MOTION for Settlement Approval filed by Erenito DeJesus, Josue Millien, Kevin Joseph, Terrance Crawford, Roy Sangster, Nehum Wilson, Yishmael Levi, Tawanda Thompson, Hector Sanchez, Yasner Echenovia, Tomm y Usry, Charles Wessel, Amado S. Pla, Amado S. PLA.Based on a review of the settlement agreement (Harman Decl. (Docket No. 106), Ex. A) and Plaintiffs' uncontested motion for approval of the settlement agreement (Docket No. 104), the Court finds that the settlement amounting to $158,300 is fair and reasonable as further set forth in this order. After due consideration of all the Goldberger factors, the Court finds that the proposed attorney's fee award is excessive as further set forth in this order. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. All pending motions are moot. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 1/13/2014) (lmb)
|
|
Filing
76
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 56 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 51 Order on Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction, Order on Motion to Certify Class. MOTION for Reconsideration re; 51 Order on Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction, Order o n Motion to Certify Class. MOTION for Reconsideration re; 51 Order on Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction, Order on Motion to Certify Class filed by Roy Sangster, Josue Millien, Kevin Joseph, Terrance Crawford, Tawanda Thompson, Yishmael Levi, Charles Wessel, Amado S. Pla. As the Court made clear during the oral argument on May 9th, there are good reasons to question the proposition that an unaccepted, or rejected, offer of judgment under Rule 68 can moot a plaintiff's claim. (Tr. 4-7 , 31). Put differently, if the Court were operating on a blank slate, it might well agree with Justice Kagan's view that an unaccepted offer of judgment "is a legal nullity, with no operative effect." Genesis Healthcare Corp., 133 S. C t. at 1533 (Kagan, J., dissenting). As the Court noted, however, the "ship has sailed" on that question (Tr. 7), at least in this Circuit, as the Court of Appeals has made clear (the suggestions of the Genesis Healthcare majority notwithsta nding, see id. at 1528-29 & n.3 (majority op.) (citing McCauley v. Trans Union, LLC, 402 F.3d 340, 342 (2d Cir. 2005))) that an unaccepted offer of judgment can moot a plaintiff's claim. See Abrams v. Interco, Inc., 719 F.2d 23, 32 (2d Cir. 198 3) (Friendly, J.) ("[T]here is no justification for taking the time of the court and the defendant in the pursuit of minuscule individual claims which defendant has more than satisfied."). The ship that had sailed on May 9th is for the Name d Plaintiffs' purposes now far out at sea, as the Court ruled on their arguments in opposition to Defendants motion to dismiss, and they have failed to advance any reason to turn that ship around in their motion for reconsideration. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration is DENIED. In light of this ruling, the Court will enter judgment on the Named Plaintiffs' behalf consistent with Defendants' offer of judgment. No later than July 1, 2013, the parties are direct ed to submit a joint letter addressing whether the Named Plaintiffs' attorney's fees and costs should be determined by the Court at this juncture or at the end of the litigation, in conjunction with the costs and fees related to the other P laintiffs' claims. The parties are reminded that all discovery in this case will close sixty (60) days after the close of the opt-in period, to be specified in the forthcoming Court-approved collective action order and notice. In addition, it is hereby ordered that counsel for all parties appear for a pretrial conference with the Court on December 2, 2013, at 3:15 p.m. in Courtroom 1105 of the Thurgood Marshall Courthouse, 40 Centre Street, New York, NY. The Clerk of Court is directed to te rminate Amado S. Pla, Kevin Joseph, and Yishmael Levi as parties in this action, and to terminate Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration (Docket No. 56). ( Pretrial Conference set for 12/2/2013 at 03:15 PM in Courtroom 1105, 40 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Jesse M. Furman.) (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 6/24/2013) (lmb)
|
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
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
