Lugo v. OT Nyack, LLC
- Judith McCarthy
- 7:24-cv-05330
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Lugo v. OT Nyack, LLC: Magistrate Judge McCarthy approved the parties’ wage-and-hour settlement and directed them to file a dismissal with prejudice.
Luis Lugo and the defendants were affected by the court’s approval of their settlement. The parties were directed to file a stipulation dismissing the case with prejudice, and the court retained limited jurisdiction to enforce the agreement.
What happened
Luis Lugo sued OT Nyack, LLC and the other defendants, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York labor laws. The parties submitted a settlement agreement for court review before extensive discovery occurred.
The court considered whether the agreement fairly and reasonably resolved the disputed issues. It found that the parties negotiated through able counsel at arm’s length and that the agreement, including attorney fees equal to one-third of the total settlement, was fair and reasonable.
Judge Judith C. McCarthy approved the settlement agreement. The parties were directed to file a stipulation dismissing the case with prejudice by June 18, 2025, and the court retained jurisdiction for the limited purpose of enforcing the agreement.
The detailed version
- Lugo v. OT Nyack, LLC · No. 7:24-cv-05330
- Judith McCarthy
- June 11, 2025
Background
Luis Lugo brought this action against OT Nyack, LLC; Ventus Capital LLC; Ventus Management LLC; Oak Tree Capital LLC; Youssef Goldberg, also identified as Yousef; Shimon Rieder; Malky Rosenfeld; Michelle Esle; and Kelly Moore-Gargano. He alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
On May 28, 2025, the parties submitted a settlement agreement and release for court review, along with a supporting letter, a damages calculation, and records of attorney time and costs. The parties had engaged in early settlement discussions and sought to resolve the case before extensive discovery.
Settlement review
The court evaluated the agreement under factors including Lugo’s possible recovery, the extent to which settlement would avoid litigation burdens and expenses, the seriousness of the litigation risks, whether the agreement resulted from arm’s-length negotiations between experienced counsel, and the possibility of fraud or collusion.
The court found that the agreement was the product of arm’s-length negotiations between able counsel. It also found that the agreement’s terms, including an award of Lugo’s counsel’s fees equal to one-third of the total settlement amount, fairly and reasonably resolved the case. The opinion does not state the total settlement amount. The court noted that approving the attorney-fee award did not endorse the reasonableness of the hourly rates.
Ruling and effect
The court approved the settlement agreement after considering the identified fairness factors. It directed the parties to file a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice by June 18, 2025. The opinion states that the court would retain jurisdiction for the limited purpose of enforcing the agreement.
The opinion also noted that the settlement agreement’s caption referred to the Eastern District of New York and that its text referred to both the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York. The court determined from the record and docket that the case was pending in the Southern District of New York.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.