Guzman v. Joesons Auto Parts et al
| Filipe Guzman |
| Joesons Auto Parts II, Joesons Auto Parts III, Pargie Visciano and Joesons Auto Parts |
| 2:2011cv04543 |
| September 19, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Central Islip Office |
| E. Thomas Boyle |
| Arthur D. Spatt |
| Labor: Fair Standards |
| 29 U.S.C. ยง 201 Denial of Overtime Compensation |
| 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
53
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION: The Memorandum Opinion & Order dated May 15, 2013 [Docket Entry No. 47] is modified as stated herein and the Judgment dated May 15, 2013 is vacated. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge E. Thomas Boyle on 6/13/2013. (Suarez, Stephanie)
|
|
Filing
47
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 44 Motion for Attorney Fees: Upon consideration of the relevant factors, the Court finds that the attorney fee contemplated in the proposed settlement is excessive, and a legal fee of 25 percent is appro priate and adequate as to plaintiff Filipe Guzman, and 20 percent as to settling party Nestor Meza. SEE Memorandum Opinion & Order for further information. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter final judgment awarding attorney fees to plaintiff consistent with this Memorandum Opinion & Order. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge E. Thomas Boyle on 5/15/2013. (Suarez, Stephanie)
|
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.
