Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 10, 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
3
FlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Lowry v. Queens Ball, Judge Cott approved the parties’ Fair Labor Standards Act settlement as fair and reasonable.

Who this affects

William Shane Lowry, Queens Ball LLC, Mariano Otero, and the parties’ counsel are affected by the settlement approval and its stated limits.

What happened

William Shane Lowry sued Queens Ball LLC and Mariano Otero in a wage-and-hour case, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

The parties asked the court to approve their proposed settlement, including its attorney-fee and cost provisions. After reviewing the agreement, the court found its terms fair and reasonable, including the mutual general releases.

Judge Cott approved the settlement. The parties were directed to submit a dismissal agreement by July 21, 2028, and the court said its approval did not approve the parties’ tax allocations or the hourly rate of Lowry’s lawyer.

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
July 10, 2023

Background

William Shane Lowry brought this wage-and-hour case against Queens Ball LLC and Mariano Otero. He alleged, among other things, violations of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and several violations of New York Labor Law. The parties consented to Magistrate Judge James L. Cott’s jurisdiction to review their proposed settlement.

Settlement review

The parties submitted a joint letter and a proposed settlement agreement for approval under the Second Circuit’s requirements for reviewing FLSA settlements. The court stated that FLSA settlements generally receive a strong presumption of fairness, but courts review them because the parties may be better positioned to assess the settlement’s reasonableness.

After reviewing the parties’ submissions, the court found that all settlement terms, including the allocation of attorney’s fees and costs, appeared fair and reasonable under the circumstances. The court noted that the agreement appeared to result from arm’s-length bargaining between experienced counsel. It also approved the mutual general releases because Lowry was a former employee with no ongoing relationship with the defendants and the releases applied to both sides.

Ruling

Judge Cott approved the settlement. The court clarified that approving the allocation of attorney’s fees did not approve the hourly rate of Lowry’s counsel, and that approving the settlement did not approve the parties’ agreed tax allocations. The parties were directed to submit their stipulation of dismissal by July 21, 2028.

Disposition

The settlement was approved. The opinion does not state that the court entered a dismissal; it directs the parties to submit a stipulation of dismissal by the stated date.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-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.