Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 23, 2023

Lowry v. Queens Ball LLC

Judge
James Cott
Docket
1:23-cv-02623
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Lowry v. Queens Ball LLC, Judge Cott ordered the parties to submit a signed settlement and a joint request explaining why it should be approved.

Who this affects

William Shane Lowry, Queens Ball LLC, and Mariano Otero, whose reported settlement remained subject to submission and court review.

What happened

In Lowry v. Queens Ball LLC, the parties reported that they had reached a settlement in principle on May 31, 2023. They later agreed that the court could review the settlement.

The court directed the parties to file a joint letter motion and their fully signed settlement agreement by June 30, 2023. The motion must explain why the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable and complies with the Second Circuit’s requirements for reviewing certain settlements.

Judge James L. Cott did not approve the settlement in this order. He ordered the parties to submit the requested papers and provided examples of acceptable and unacceptable settlement terms from earlier rulings.

The detailed version

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

Case
Lowry v. Queens Ball LLC · No. 1:23-cv-02623
Judge
James Cott
Date
June 23, 2023

Background

William Shane Lowry sued Queens Ball LLC and Mariano Otero. The opinion states that the parties reported a settlement in principle on May 31, 2023. The parties then consented to Magistrate Judge James L. Cott’s jurisdiction so that he could review their settlement agreement.

What the Court Ordered

The court directed the parties to file a joint letter motion and their fully executed settlement agreement by June 30, 2023. The motion must explain why the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable and otherwise complies with the Second Circuit’s decision in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc.

The court also directed the parties to several earlier rulings for guidance about settlement terms, including restrictions on publicizing a settlement, reemployment provisions, communications with the media, the scope of releases, truthfulness exceptions to non-disparagement provisions, and confidentiality provisions.

Disposition

Judge James L. Cott ordered the parties to submit the settlement papers and joint request for court approval. The order did not approve or reject the settlement agreement.

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.