Varela Calero v. Lotus 17 Inc.
- Robert Lehrburger
- 1:24-cv-05257
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Antonio Varela Calero v. Lotus 17 Inc., Judge Lehrburger approved the wage-law settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice.
The plaintiffs and defendants in the wage-and-hour action, including Antonio Varela Calero and Lotus 17 Inc., are affected by the approved settlement and dismissal of the case.
What happened
Antonio Varela Calero v. Lotus 17 Inc. was an action for damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage law, and New York Labor Law. The parties jointly asked the court to approve their settlement.
The court reviewed the settlement and considered the risks and costs of continuing the case, possible recovery, attorney’s fees, and whether the agreement resulted from fair negotiations or fraud. The agreement had no confidentiality or non-disparagement provisions, limited the release to wage-and-hour claims, and provided for fees the court found reasonable.
Judge Lehrburger found the settlement fair and reasonable and approved it. The court dismissed and discontinued the entire case with prejudice, without costs or fees to any party except as provided in the settlement agreement, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
The detailed version
- Varela Calero v. Lotus 17 Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-05257
- Robert Lehrburger
- Aug. 5, 2025
Background
The plaintiffs brought an action for damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), a federal wage-and-hour law, and the New York Labor Law. The parties submitted a joint letter asking the court to approve their fully executed settlement agreement. The court had assisted with mediating the case.
Settlement Review
The court explained that it had to determine whether the FLSA settlement was fair and reasonable and resulted from arm’s-length negotiations rather than employer overreaching. It reviewed the settlement agreement and the parties’ letter and considered, among other things, prior proceedings, the risks and burdens of continuing the litigation, the possible range of recovery, the bargaining process, attorney’s fees, and the possibility of fraud or collusion.
The court noted that the agreement contained no confidentiality restrictions or non-disparagement provision. It also found that the release was narrowly limited to wage-and-hour claims and that the attorney’s fees fell within a fair, reasonable, and acceptable range.
Ruling
Judge Lehrburger found the settlement agreement fair and reasonable and approved it. Because the case had been resolved by settlement, the court dismissed and discontinued it in its entirety, with prejudice, without costs or fees to any party except as provided in the settlement agreement. The court also directed the Clerk of Court to terminate all motions and deadlines and close the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.