Loo v. I.M.E. Restaurant Inc. et al
| Beng Khoon Loo |
| I.M.E. Restaurant Inc., Chau Xao Ma, David Ma, Irene Ma, Michael Ma, Richard Ma, Tai Viem Ma, Pho 92 Restaurant, Inc., Alex Seto and Andy She |
| Beng Khoon Loo |
| Chau Xao Ma, Irene Ma, Michael Ma, Tai Viem Ma and Pho 92 Restaurant, Inc. |
| 1:2017cv02558 |
| April 28, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Brooklyn Office |
| Allyne R. Ross |
| Ramon E. Reyes |
| Labor: Fair Standards |
| 29 U.S.C. ยง 201 Fair Labor Standards Act |
| None |
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
52
ORDER granting 50 Motion for Summary Judgment: For the reasons stated in the attached opinion, defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted. As such, plaintiffs' FLSA claims are dismissed with prejudice, and their state-law claims are dismissed without prejudice to renewal in state court. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close the case. Ordered by Judge Allyne R. Ross on 12/27/2018. (Zimmer, Allison)
|
|
Filing
43
ORDER granting 41 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment: For the reasons explained in the attached opinion, defendants' motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of Ms. Ma's status as an "employer" under the FLSA and the NYLL is granted. Ordered by Judge Allyne R. Ross on 8/29/2018. (Zimmer, Allison)
|
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 Eastern 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.
