Millan v. Sushibym Inc.
- Sarah Cave
- 1:19-cv-09514
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Millan v. Sushibym Inc., Judge Cave approved the revised wage-and-hour settlement, dismissed the action with prejudice, and retained jurisdiction to enforce it.
Michelle Millan, Sushibym Inc., and Yu Ying Lin were affected by the approved settlement and dismissal of the action.
What happened
Millan v. Sushibym Inc. involved a proposed settlement that the court had previously declined to approve because its release provision was too broad.
The parties submitted a revised agreement limiting the release to Michelle Millan’s wage-and-hour claims. After reviewing the agreement and supporting materials, the court found the settlement terms, including attorney fees and costs, fair and reasonable.
Judge Cave approved the settlement, dismissed the action with prejudice and without costs except as provided in the agreement, and retained jurisdiction to enforce it. Pending motions were declared moot, and the Clerk of Court was asked to close the case.
The detailed version
- Millan v. Sushibym Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-09514
- Sarah Cave
- Oct. 2, 2020
Background
The court had previously declined to approve the parties’ settlement in its entirety because the agreement contained an overly broad release provision. The court’s earlier order cited Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. and directed the parties to revise the agreement.
Revised Settlement
The parties submitted a revised settlement agreement on September 28, 2020. The revised release was limited to Michelle Millan’s wage-and-hour claims. The court reviewed the parties’ joint letter-motion, the settlement agreement, the amended agreement, and related exhibits.
Ruling
The court found that all proposed settlement terms, including the release and the allocation of attorney fees and costs, appeared fair and reasonable under the circumstances and the factors identified in Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc. The court approved the settlement.
The action was dismissed with prejudice and without costs except as provided in the settlement agreement. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the agreement. Any pending motions were declared moot, and the Clerk of Court was asked to close the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.