Gao v. Graceful Services, Inc.
- Sarah Netburn
- 1:18-cv-04005
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Gao v. Graceful Services, U.S. Magistrate Judge Netburn approved a fair settlement, dismissed the action against two defendants with prejudice, and left one defendant in the case.
The settlement approval and dismissal with prejudice resolved the action as to Graceful Services, Inc., and Grace Macnow. Graceful II Service Inc. remained a defendant.
What happened
Mei Yue Gao and defendants Graceful Services, Inc., and Grace Macnow agreed to settlement terms in principle in this Fair Labor Standards Act case. They submitted a proposed settlement to the court on May 4, 2020.
The court reviewed the proposed settlement under the process described in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House and determined that it was fair and reasonable. The opinion does not provide the settlement amount or other terms.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn approved the settlement and dismissed the action with prejudice as to Graceful Services, Inc., and Grace Macnow only. Defendant Graceful II Service Inc. remained in the case.
The detailed version
- Gao v. Graceful Services, Inc. · No. 1:18-cv-04005
- Sarah Netburn
- May 19, 2020
Background
This was a Fair Labor Standards Act case brought by Mei Yue Gao against Graceful Services, Inc., Grace Macnow, and Graceful II Service Inc. Gao and Graceful Services, Inc., and Macnow agreed to settlement terms in principle. On May 4, 2020, they submitted a proposed settlement for court review under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, a decision requiring review of certain Fair Labor Standards Act settlements.
Court’s Analysis
After reviewing the proposed settlement, the court determined that it was fair and reasonable. The opinion does not state the settlement amount, describe the settlement terms, or explain the claims in detail.
Ruling
Judge Sarah Netburn approved the settlement. The action was dismissed with prejudice as to Graceful Services, Inc., and Grace Macnow only. Graceful II Service Inc. remained in the case.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.