Boyle v. Robert M. Spano Plumbing & Heating, Inc. et al
| Robert Boyle |
| Robert M. Spano Plumbing & Heating, Inc. and Robert M. Spano |
| 7:2015cv02899 |
| April 15, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| White Plains Office |
| Westchester |
| Kenneth M. Karas |
| Fair Labor Standards Act |
| 29 U.S.C. ยง 020 |
| 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
35
OPINION & ORDER. On April 15, 2015, Plaintiff Robert Boyle (Plaintiff) brought a putative collective action against Robert M. Spano Plumbing & Heating, Inc., along with Robert M. Spano individually and any other entities affiliated with or controll ed by Robert M. Spano Plumbing & Heating, Inc., pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq., New York Labor Law Article 19 § 663, the provisions of N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 12, part 142 , and New York Labor Law Article 6 § 190, et seq. (See Compl. 1 (Dkt. No. 1).) The Parties jointly moved for approval of their proposed settlement. For the reasons that follow, their Motion is granted. The Court is satisfied that the proposed settlement represents a reasonable compromise of Plaintiffs claims, and, accordingly, it is approved. For the reasons stated, the Parties' settlement is approved. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Kenneth M. Karas on 4/27/16) (yv)
|
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.
