Fu et al v. Mee May Corp. et al

Filing 66

OPINION AND ORDER re: 65 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. Thus, because all of the other factors favor approval of the settlement (as explained in my October 18, 2017 Opinion & Order), I approve the settlement in this matter, as amended on September 25, 20 17 and October 20, 2017. In light of the settlement, the action is dismissed with prejudice and without costs. The Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement. See Hendrickson v. United States, 791 F.3d 354, 358 (2d Cir. 2015). The Clerk of the Court is respectfully requested to mark this matter closed. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 10/24/2017) Copies Transmitted By Chambers. (anc)

.'

~--· ·.~;

... i ..·' :~ ·-~l

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

-----------------------------------x
BAO CHENG FU, GUANG LI ZHANG
and ZHONG QI LIN,
15 Civ. 4549

(HBP)

Plaintiffs,
OPINION
AND ORDER

-againstMEE MAY CORP., d/b/a MEE NOODLE
SHOP & GRILL, JIANG QING CHEN,
KUANG CHI WU, JOHN WU (first
name unknown), JOHN DOE and
JANE DOE #1-10,
Defendants.

-----------------------------------x
PITMAN, United States Magistrate Judge:

This matter is before me on the parties'

joint applica-

tion to approve the their second amended settlement agreement
(Docket Item ("D.I.")

65).

All parties have consented to my

exercising plenary jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§

636(c)

This is an action brought by three individuals who
formerly made deliveries at a small Chinese restaurant in
Manhattan and seeks allegedly unpaid wages, overtime premium pay
and spread-of-hours pay.

The action is brought under the Fair

Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA"), 29 U.S.C.
the New York Labor Law.

§§

201 et g_g., and

Plaintiffs also assert claims based on

defendants' alleged failure to maintain certain payroll records,

to provide certain notices as required by the Labor Law and to
reimburse plaintiffs for the cost of bicycles that plaintiffs
used to make deliveries.
As discussed in an Opinion & Order dated October 18,
2017

(D.I.

64), the parties first sought approval of the settle-

ment agreement in July of 2016,

(see Settlement Agreement and

General Release, attached as Ex.

1 to Letter from Marisol Santos,

Esq., to the undersigned, dated July 20, 2016

(D.I. 55)) ,

1

and

submitted an amendment to the settlement agreement in September
2017

(see Amendment of Settlement Agreement and Release Pursuant

to Section 8 of the Agreement, attached as Ex. 1 to Letter from
Jian Hang, Esq.,
63)).

to the undersigned, dated Sept. 25,

2017

(D.I.

As discussed in the October 18, 2017 Opinion & Order, the

factors governing the review of FLSA settlement agreements
favored approval of the amended settlement agreement, with one
exception:

the amended settlement agreement contained a general

release by which plaintiffs released defendants from claims that
were not related to wage-and-hour claims

1

(see Opinion & Order,

In Opinions and Orders dated November 14, 2016 and March
31, 2017, I refused to approve the settlement agreement because
the parties did not provide sufficient information to enable me
to determine whether the proposed settlement was fair and
reasonable and because the parties included various provisions
that were inconsistent with the principles set forth in the
relevant case law (Opinion & Order, dated Nov. 14, 2016 (D.I.
60); Opinion & Order, dated Mar. 31, 2017 (D.I. 62)).
2

dated Oct. 18, 2017

(D.I.

64) at 6-10).

Thus, I afforded the

parties another opportunity to amend the settlement agreement and
submit it for approval.
In the second amendment to the settlement agreement,
the parties have amended the general release to state that
plaintiffs "enter into this agreement intending to waive, settle,
and release all wage-and-hour claims arising from the events as
alleged in the Litigation [sic] plaintiffs had, have, or might
have against defendants"

(Second Amendment of Settlement Agree-

ment and Release Pursuant to Section 8 of the Agreement, dated
Oct. 20, 2017

(D.I.

65)

(emphasis in original)).

The amended

release is permissible because it is limited to the wage-and-hour
claims at issue in this litigation.
Plumbing & Heating,
*3

Inc., 15 Civ. 2899 (KMK), 2016 WL 1688014 at

(S.D.N.Y. Apr. 27, 2016)

(Karas, D.J.); Ocasio v. Big Apple

Sanitation, Inc., No. 13 CV 04758
*2
12.y,

See Boyle v. Robert M. Spano

(E.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2016)

(CBA) (LB), 2016 WL 5376241 at

(Report & Recommendation), adopted

2016 WL 5390123 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2016); Martinez v.

Gulluoglu LLC, 15 Civ. 2727
Jan. 15, 2016)

(PAE), 2016 WL 206474 at *2

(S.D.N.Y.

(Engelmayer, D.J.).

Thus, because all of the other factors favor approval
of the settlement (as explained in my October 18, 2017 Opinion &
Order), I approve the settlement in this matter, as amended on
3

September 25, 2017 and October 20, 2017.

In light of the settle-

ment, the action is dismissed with prejudice and without costs.
The Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement
agreement.

See Hendrickson v. United States, 791 F.3d 354, 358

(2d Cir. 2015).

The Clerk of the Court is respectfully requested

to mark this matter closed.
Dated:

New York, New York
October 24, 2017
SO ORDERED

2R~~

United States Magistrate Judge
Copies transmitted to:
All Counsel

4