Metwali et al v. APV Valet Parking Corporation et al
| Mohamed A Metwali, Hussein Mahrous and Nayel Bassam Sayegh |
| APV Valet Parking Corp. and Albert Vukudedaj |
| 1:2016cv02440 |
| April 1, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| Westchester |
| Colleen McMahon |
| 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
45
OPINION AND ORDER:The Court has reviewed the submissions from counsel in support of the proposed settlement of this action. (Doc. Nos. 41, 42, and 44.) Based on the written submissions and discussions with the Parties during settlement negotiations , the Court finds that the proposed agreement is fair and reasonable. See Cheeks, 796 F.3d 199. Accordingly, the settlement is APPROVED. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate this action with prejudice. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Ellis on 10/10/2017) (js)
|
|
Filing
43
OPINION AND ORDER: For the reasons that follow, the Plaintiffs' request for approval of the settlement agreement is DENIED. The Parties may refile the settlement and letter, curing the defects described above, by September 29, 2017. Failure to do so will result in the Court setting pretrial deadlines for this action. So Ordered. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Ellis on 9/13/2017) (js)
|
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.
