Macas v. K.Y. Young, Inc.
- Lewis Liman
- 1:21-cv-03244
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Macas v. K.Y. Young, Inc., Judge Liman approved the settlement and dismissed the action, allowing restoration within 30 days.
Mayra Joana Macas, K.Y. Young, Inc., the other defendants, and plaintiff’s counsel. The settlement resolves the action subject to the stated 30-day period for seeking restoration.
What happened
In Macas v. K.Y. Young, Inc., the court reviewed a settlement reached by Mayra Joana Macas and the defendants. The settlement concerned claims related to Macas’s compensation from Dolce Spa NYC, and the court also considered an agreement requiring her to protect the defendant from certain third-party claims.
The court found the settlement fair and reasonable, including the narrowly tailored protection provision. It also approved plaintiff’s counsel’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs.
Judge Lewis J. Liman dismissed the action without costs and without prejudice to restoring it to the court’s calendar within 30 days. The court dismissed any pending motions as moot and canceled all conferences and deadlines.
The detailed version
- Macas v. K.Y. Young, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-03244
- Lewis Liman
- May 20, 2022
Background
The court held a settlement hearing on May 6, 2022. At the hearing, it reviewed a proposed settlement of Mayra Joana Macas’s claims against K.Y. Young, Inc. and the other defendants. The settlement included claims related to Macas’s compensation from Dolce Spa NYC.
The agreement included both a release and an indemnification provision. The release covered, among other matters, claims related to Macas’s compensation from Dolce Spa NYC. The indemnification provision required Macas to hold the defendant harmless from third-party claims arising out of claims relating to that compensation.
Court’s Analysis
The court initially approved the settlement as fair and reasonable, with the exception of the indemnification provision, and approved plaintiff’s counsel’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs. The court then concluded that the release and indemnification provision operated together: Macas released direct claims against Dolce Spa NYC and agreed to protect the defendant from third-party claims arising from her claims against Dolce Spa NYC.
Because the release was fair and the indemnification provision was narrowly tailored to the allegations being settled, the court concluded that the provision was fair and reasonable. The court approved the settlement in its entirety as fair and reasonable.
Disposition
Judge Lewis J. Liman ordered that the action be dismissed without costs and without prejudice to restoring it to the court’s calendar, provided an application to restore the action was made within 30 days of the order. The court stated that an application filed after 30 days could be denied solely for that reason. Any pending motions were dismissed as moot, and all conferences and deadlines were canceled.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.