Cui v. East Palace One, Inc. et al

Filing 116

ORDER OF DISMISSAL: It is hereby ORDERED that: 1. The Court finds that the terms of the proposed settlement agreement are fair, reasonable, and adequate, both to redress Plaintiff's claims in this action and to compensate Plaintiff's counsel for their legal fees. 2. As Plaintiff has requested that the Court retain jurisdiction over this action for purposes of enforcing the parties' settlement agreement and has informed the Court that Defendants have no objection to this r equest (see Dkt. 113), the Court will retain jurisdiction over this matter, solely for the purpose of enforcing the settlement agreement. 3. As a result of the Court's approval of the parties' executed settlement agreement, this actio n is hereby discontinued in its entirety, with prejudice, and without costs or fees to any party. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case on the Docket of the Court. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Debra C. Freeman on 1/11/2022) (ks)

Case 1:17-cv-06713-DCF Document 116 Filed 01/11/22 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
RUIXUAN CUI, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated,
Plaintiff,

17cv06713 (DF)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

-againstEAST PALACE ONE, INC. d/b/a East Palace
Chinese Restaurant, et al.,
Defendants.
DEBRA FREEMAN, United States Magistrate Judge:

In this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, which is
before this Court on the consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties, having
reached an agreement in principle to resolve the action, have placed their proposed settlement
agreement before the Court for approval. See Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d
1999 (2d Cir. 2015) (requiring judicial fairness review of FLSA settlements). The parties have
also submitted a joint letter to the Court, explaining why they believe the proposed settlement
agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate (Dkt. 111), and Plaintiff’s counsel has further
submitted two follow-up letters, in response to requests by the Court to clarify certain aspects of
the parties’ agreement (Dkts. 113, 115).
The Court has reviewed the parties’ submissions in order to determine whether the
proposed agreement (Dkt. 111-1) represents a reasonable compromise of the claims asserted in
this action, and, in light of the totality of the relevant circumstances, including the
representations made in the parties’ joint letter and in the additional letters filed by Plaintiff’s
counsel, the terms of the proposed settlement agreement, and the Court’s general familiarity with
the action, it is hereby ORDERED that:

Case 1:17-cv-06713-DCF Document 116 Filed 01/11/22 Page 2 of 2

1.

The Court finds that the terms of the proposed settlement agreement are fair,

reasonable, and adequate, both to redress Plaintiff’s claims in this action and to compensate
Plaintiff’s counsel for their legal fees.
2.

As Plaintiff has requested that the Court retain jurisdiction over this action for

purposes of enforcing the parties’ settlement agreement and has informed the Court that
Defendants have no objection to this request (see Dkt. 113), the Court will retain jurisdiction
over this matter, solely for the purpose of enforcing the settlement agreement.
3.

As a result of the Court’s approval of the parties’ executed settlement agreement,

this action is hereby discontinued in its entirety, with prejudice, and without costs or fees to any
party. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case on the Docket of the Court.
Dated: New York, New York
January 11, 2022
SO ORDERED
________________________________
DEBRA FREEMAN
United States Magistrate Judge
Copies to:
All counsel (via ECF)

2