Chen et al v. Gypsophila Nail & Spa Inc. et al
| Shu Lan Chen |
| Gypsophila Nail & Spa Inc., "Sherry W" Doe, John Does and Jane Does #1-10 |
| 1:2015cv02520 |
| April 2, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| Kings |
| J. Paul Oetken |
| Fair Labor Standards Act |
| 29 U.S.C. ยง 021 |
| 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
24
OPINION AND ORDER. I conclude that the settlement reached by the parties is fair and reasonable. Plaintiff has no written records of the hours that she worked. Although plaintiff's recollection of her hours is sufficient to prove the hours that she worked, Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680, 687 (1946), superseded by statute, Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) (2006), as recognized in Gorman v. Consol. Edison Corp., 488 F.3d 586, 590 (2d Cir. 2007), her rec ollection is not binding on the fact finder. Given plaintiff's interest in the outcome, it is probable that the fact finder would apply some discount factor to her claimed hours. Nevertheless, the settlement gives her more than her claimed actua l damages. In addition, although the settlement does not award plaintiff all of the liquidated damages to which she may be entitled, the fact that the settlement awards more than one hundred cents for each dollar of actual damages means that plaint iff will be receiving some liquidated damages. The fact that the matter is being resolved by way of settlement also eliminates the burden and uncertainty of collection proceedings. Finally, at the settlement conference, counsel for both sides demons trated a mastery of the evidence and pertinent legal principles; counsel for both sides also represented their respective clients zealously. Given the conflicting evidence, the quality of the evidence and counsel and the allocation of the burden of proof on plaintiffs, the settlement represents a reasonable compromise with respect to contested issues. I, therefore, approve it. Reyes v. Altamarea Group, LLC, 10 Civ. 6451 (RLE), 2011 WL 4599822 at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 16, 2011) (Ellis, M.J.) (As further set forth in this Order) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 9/16/2015) Copies Sent By Chambers. (lmb) Modified on 9/17/2015 (lmb).
|
|
Filing
15
OPINION AND ORDER re: 14 FIRST MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and Failure To State A Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted, filed by "Sherry W" Doe, Gypsophila Nail & Spa Inc. For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' motion to dismiss is DENIED. Defendants shall answer the complaint on or before June 23, 2015. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the motion at docket number 14. (Signed by Judge J. Paul Oetken on 6/2/2015) (kko)
|
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.
