Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
- Law360
- Law360 UK
- Law360 Pulse
- Law360 Employment Authority
- Law360 Tax Authority
- Law360 Insurance Authority
- Law360 Real Estate Authority
- Law360 Healthcare Authority
- Law360 Bankruptcy Authority
- Products
- Lexis®
- Law360 In-Depth
- Law360 Podcasts
- Rankings
- Regional Powerhouses
- Law360's MVPs
- Women in Law Report
- Law360 400
- Diversity Snapshot
- Practice Groups of the Year
- Rising Stars
- Titans of the Plaintiffs Bar
- Sections
- Adv. Search & Platform Tools
- About all sections
- Browse all sections
- Banking
- Bankruptcy
- Class Action
- Competition
- Employment
- Energy
- Expert Analysis
- Insurance
- Intellectual Property
- Product Liability
- Securities
- Beta Tools
- Track docs
- Track attorneys
- Track judges
Ramirez et al v. M L Restaurant, Corp. et al
Case Number:
1:14-cv-04030
Court:
Nature of Suit:
Multi Party Litigation:
Class Action
Judge:
Firms
-
January 28, 2016
Restaurant, Workers Agree On Language In $1M Settlement
A New York federal judge said Thursday that a class of workers who claim they were stiffed on overtime pay and the New York City restaurant they worked for have agreed on language for their $1 million settlement that meets federal labor law requirements, and told them to submit the deal by next week.
-
November 30, 2015
Eatery, NLRB Split Over Gag Order Imperiling $1M Settlement
A $1 million settlement in a case involving a New York City restaurant, a group that represents immigrant workers and a class of employees who say they were stiffed on overtime pay and tips is in jeopardy because the eatery opposes additional terms required by the National Labor Relations Board.
-
March 19, 2015
NY Restaurant Wants Plaintiff's Counsel DQ'd In FLSA Suit
Owners of a Latin American eatery in New York City urged a federal judge on Wednesday to disqualify the attorney representing workers in a Fair Labor Standards Act class action, arguing her simultaneous representation of a labor group defending itself against racketeering claims was a clear conflict of interest.