Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 4, 2025

Lugo v. Bowery Residents' Committee, Inc.

Judge
Jesse Furman
Docket
1:24-cv-07223
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
FlsaFee PetitionCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Lugo v. Bowery, Judge Furman approved the parties’ Fair Labor Standards Act settlement, dismissed the case with prejudice, and closed it.

Who this affects

The settlement and dismissal affected Jillian Lugo and Bowery Residents’ Committee, Inc., the parties to the Fair Labor Standards Act case.

What happened

Lugo v. Bowery Residents’ Committee, Inc. was a wage-related case brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The parties told the court they had reached a settlement.

The court found the settlement fair and reasonable based on the nature and scope of Jillian Lugo’s individual claim and the risks and costs of continuing the case. The settlement amount was $65,000, and the court considered a request for $19,853.50 in attorney’s fees and costs.

Judge Jesse M. Furman approved the settlement, subject to requiring court approval for any later modification. He dismissed the case with prejudice, found all pending motions moot, and directed the Clerk to close the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Lugo v. Bowery Residents' Committee, Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-07223
Judge
Jesse Furman
Date
Apr. 4, 2025

Background

Jillian Lugo brought this action against Bowery Residents’ Committee, Inc. under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law governing certain wages and working conditions. The parties advised the court that they had agreed to settle the case.

The court previously required the parties to submit a joint letter explaining the proposed settlement and addressing the factors used to evaluate whether a settlement is fair. After reviewing the parties’ March 31, 2025 letter, the court found the settlement fair and reasonable in light of the nature and scope of Lugo’s individual claim and the risks and expenses of further litigation.

Attorney’s Fees and Settlement Condition

Lugo sought approval of $19,853.50 in attorney’s fees and costs, equal to 31% of the $65,000 settlement amount. The court noted that courts in the district commonly approve attorney-fee awards ranging from 30% to 33%. It also found no basis to reduce the requested amount because there were no additional plaintiffs who had joined the case, the case was not a collective action, and the fee award was likely based on an agreement between Lugo and her attorney.

The court required that any modification of the settlement agreement receive court approval, even if the agreement contained a provision allowing the parties to modify it without court approval.

Ruling and Disposition

The court approved the settlement subject to that condition. It dismissed the case with prejudice, stated that all pending motions were moot, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.