Ali v. High-Steppers Corp. d/b/a City Lights
Sheena Ali and Yajaira Badillo v. High-Steppers Corp. d/b/a City Lights, John Migillico, and Victor A. Rodrigues
- Sidney Stein
- 1:24-cv-03938
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Ali v. High-Steppers, Judge Gary Stein approved the revised wage-settlement agreement and dismissed the action with prejudice.
The settlement affects plaintiffs Sheena Ali and Yajaira Badillo and defendants High-Steppers Corp. d/b/a City Lights, John Migillico, and Victor A. Rodrigues. The action was dismissed with prejudice after the court approved the settlement.
What happened
Sheena Ali and Yajaira Badillo sued High-Steppers Corp. d/b/a City Lights, John Migillico, and Victor A. Rodrigues under federal and New York wage laws. The parties submitted a settlement agreement for court approval, but the court rejected the first two versions because their release provisions were too broad.
The parties then submitted a second revised agreement. It limited the release to wage-and-hour claims that Ali and Badillo asserted in this case, including claims for regular and overtime wages and related amounts. The court found that this change corrected the earlier problem.
Judge Gary Stein ruled that the second revised agreement was fair and reasonable, including its financial terms, attorneys’ fees and costs, and other nonfinancial terms. He approved the agreement and dismissed the action with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Ali v. High-Steppers Corp. d/b/a City Lights · No. 1:24-cv-03938
- Sidney Stein
- Oct. 14, 2025
Background
This action asserted claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the federal wage-and-hour law, and the New York Labor Law (NYLL). The parties asked the court to approve a negotiated settlement under the standard described in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House Inc.
The court first declined to approve the parties’ original settlement agreement on February 19, 2025, because it contained several impermissible non-economic provisions. The parties filed a first revised agreement, but the court again denied approval on April 16, 2025, because Paragraph 3 contained an overly broad, nonmutual release. The court directed the parties to revise that provision and related language.
Second Revised Agreement
The parties filed a second revised agreement on April 29, 2025. Under Paragraph 3, the plaintiffs released the defendants from FLSA and NYLL wage-and-hour claims asserted against them in this action. The released claims included asserted claims for regular and overtime wages, related benefits, liquidated damages, interest, and related attorneys’ fees and costs, subject to the agreement’s terms.
The court held that the release remained nonmutual but had been narrowed enough to cover only wage-and-hour claims asserted in this action. The court also found that the revised language on the agreement’s last page complied with its prior order by referring to wage-and-hour claims the plaintiffs had brought against the defendants.
Ruling
The court concluded that the second revised agreement was fair and reasonable under the settlement-approval standard it applied. It stated that the economic terms, including the settlement amount and plaintiffs’ counsel’s attorneys’ fees and costs, and the other non-economic terms had previously been found fair and reasonable.
Accordingly, Judge Gary Stein ordered that the Second Revised Agreement was approved and that the action was dismissed with prejudice. The opinion does not state the settlement amount.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.