Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 28, 2023

Du v. Dingxiang Inc

Judge
James Oetken
Docket
1:19-cv-11924
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
FlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Du v. Dingxiang Inc., Judge Oetken approved an $80,000 Fair Labor Standards Act settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice.

Who this affects

Plaintiff Mei Rong Du and the defendants were affected by the court’s approval of their settlement. The case was dismissed with prejudice, and the court retained limited jurisdiction over disputes arising from the settlement agreement.

What happened

In Du v. Dingxiang Inc., the parties told the court they had reached a settlement of the Fair Labor Standards Act case. The proposed settlement provided $80,000 for plaintiff Mei Rong Du’s claims.

The settlement allocated $41,019.55—just over half of the total—to attorney’s fees and costs. The court reviewed the proposal and found its terms fair and reasonable.

Judge Oetken approved the proposed settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice. The court retained jurisdiction only to resolve disputes arising from the settlement agreement and directed the clerk to close the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Du v. Dingxiang Inc · No. 1:19-cv-11924
Judge
James Oetken
Date
June 28, 2023

Background

The parties notified the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York that they had reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act case. They submitted a proposed settlement for the court’s approval.

The proposal provided for a total payment of $80,000 to be allocated to plaintiff Mei Rong Du in connection with her Fair Labor Standards Act claims. The proposal allocated $41,019.55 to attorney’s fees and costs.

Court’s Analysis

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

Ruling

The court approved the proposed settlement. It dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning the case was ended and could not be refiled. The court retained jurisdiction solely to resolve disputes arising from the settlement agreement and settlement of the action. It directed the clerk 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.