Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 6, 2022

Liu v. New York Neuromodulation Medical, P.L.L.C.

Judge
James Oetken
Docket
1:20-cv-05000
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
FlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Liu v. New York Neuromodulation Medical, Judge Oetken approved the parties’ $25,000 FLSA settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice.

Who this affects

Sanniu Liu and the defendants were affected: the court approved their settlement, dismissed the case with prejudice, and retained limited jurisdiction over disputes arising from the settlement.

What happened

Liu v. New York Neuromodulation Medical, P.L.L.C. was a Fair Labor Standards Act case in which the parties told the court they had reached a settlement.

The proposed settlement provided $25,000 for Sanniu Liu’s claims. One-third of that amount would cover attorney’s fees and costs. The court found the settlement fair and reasonable.

Judge Oetken approved the settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice. The court kept jurisdiction only to resolve disputes arising from the settlement agreement and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Liu v. New York Neuromodulation Medical, P.L.L.C. · No. 1:20-cv-05000
Judge
James Oetken
Date
Apr. 6, 2022

Background

The parties notified the court that they had reached a settlement in Sanniu Liu’s Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case and submitted the proposed settlement for approval. The proposed agreement allocated $25,000 to Liu in connection with her FLSA claims. One-third of the settlement amount would be used for attorney’s fees and costs.

Court’s Analysis

The court reviewed the proposed settlement under the standard described in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. and found that its terms were fair and reasonable.

Disposition

Judge J. Paul Oetken approved the proposed settlement at Docket Number 46 and dismissed the case with prejudice. The court retained jurisdiction solely to resolve disputes arising from the settlement agreement and the settlement of the action. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.