Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 12, 2021

Mahabir v. Queens Dollar, Inc.

Judge
Robert Lehrburger
Docket
1:19-cv-09395
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
FlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Mahabir v. Queens Dollar, Judge Lehrburger approved the Fair Labor Standards Act settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice.

Who this affects

The settlement approval and dismissal affect Mahabir Mahabir, also known as Randolph Mahabir, Queens Dollar, Inc., doing business as 99 Cents Rush, and the other defendants.

What happened

Mahabir v. Queens Dollar, Inc. was a case seeking damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The parties asked the court to approve their settlement.

The court reviewed the settlement and considered the risks and costs of continuing the case, possible recovery, bargaining, attorneys’ fees, and possible fraud or collusion. It found the agreement fair and reasonable.

Judge Robert W. Lehrburger approved the settlement and dismissed and discontinued the entire case with prejudice, without costs or fees to any party except as provided in the settlement agreement. The court also directed the Clerk to close the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Mahabir v. Queens Dollar, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-09395
Judge
Robert Lehrburger
Date
Apr. 12, 2021

Background

Mahabir Mahabir, also known as Randolph Mahabir, sued Queens Dollar, Inc., doing business as 99 Cents Rush, and other defendants. The action sought damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage-and-hour law, and the New York Labor Law. The parties jointly asked the court to approve their Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims, which they submitted on April 12, 2021.

Settlement Review

The court explained that it had to determine whether the settlement was fair and reasonable and resulted from arm’s-length negotiations rather than employer overreaching. The court had assisted with mediation and reviewed the settlement agreement and the parties’ letter. It considered, among other things, prior proceedings, the risks and costs of continuing the case, possible recovery, the bargaining process, attorneys’ fees, and the possibility of fraud or collusion.

The court noted that the agreement contained no confidentiality restrictions, that its mutual non-disparagement provision allowed truthful statements, that the release was narrowly limited to wage-and-hour claims, and that the attorneys’ fees were within a fair and reasonable range.

Ruling

The court found the Settlement Agreement fair and reasonable and approved it. Because the case was 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 Clerk of Court was directed to terminate all motions and deadlines and 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.