Qosaj v. Gazi Realty LLC
- Katharine Parker
- 1:23-cv-07048
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Qosaj v. Gazi Realty LLC, Judge Parker approved the parties’ settlement and discontinued the action with prejudice and without costs.
Agim Qosaj, Gazi Realty, LLC, the other defendants, and the plaintiff’s counsel were affected by approval of the settlement and closure of the action.
What happened
Qosaj v. Gazi Realty LLC involved claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The parties reached an agreement in principle and asked the court to approve their proposed settlement.
The court reviewed the plaintiff’s explanation and the settlement terms. It found the agreement fair, reasonable, and adequate to address the plaintiff’s claims and compensate the plaintiff’s lawyer.
Judge Parker approved the settlement, stated that the court would not retain authority to enforce it, discontinued the action with prejudice and without costs, and directed the clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- Qosaj v. Gazi Realty LLC · No. 1:23-cv-07048
- Katharine Parker
- Apr. 16, 2024
Background
Agim Qosaj brought this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law against Gazi Realty, LLC and other defendants. The parties consented to the court’s authority to decide the case and, after reaching an agreement in principle, submitted a proposed settlement for judicial approval.
Settlement Review
Because the case involved Fair Labor Standards Act claims, the court reviewed whether the proposed settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate. The plaintiff submitted a letter explaining why he believed the settlement met that standard. After considering the letter, the settlement terms, and the relevant circumstances, the court found that the agreement fairly addressed the plaintiff’s claims and reasonably compensated the plaintiff’s counsel for legal fees.
Ruling
Judge Katharine H. Parker approved the proposed settlement. The order did not incorporate the settlement’s terms, and the court did not expressly retain jurisdiction—the authority to enforce the settlement in the future. The court stated that its approval did not establish such continuing authority. The action was discontinued with prejudice and without costs, and the clerk was directed to close the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.