Syla v. Hard Rock International, Inc
- Rochon
- 1:24-cv-08247
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Syla v. Hard Rock International, Judge Rochon ordered parties to discuss magistrate-judge consent and possible settlement conferencing after mediation failed.
The plaintiffs and defendants in Syla v. Hard Rock International (USA), Inc., including the parties represented in the pending action.
What happened
In Syla v. Hard Rock International (USA), Inc., the court said mediation had been unsuccessful and ordered the parties to discuss whether they would consent to having all further proceedings handled by Magistrate Judge Ricardo.
If both sides consented, they had to submit a completed consent form by May 21, 2025. If either side did not consent, the parties had to notify the court by joint letter without identifying the nonconsenting party and state whether they wanted a settlement conference. The order said no adverse consequences would result from withholding consent.
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon also reminded the parties that settlements of claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act usually require court approval. This order addressed case management and possible settlement procedures; it did not decide the parties’ underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Syla v. Hard Rock International, Inc · No. 1:24-cv-08247
- Rochon
- May 7, 2025
Background
The court was informed at docket entry 26 that mediation had been unsuccessful. To conserve resources, promote efficiency, and seek a faster resolution, the court ordered the parties to discuss consenting to proceed before Magistrate Judge Ricardo under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
Order
The court ordered that, if both sides consented, they had to file a fully completed Notice, Consent, and Reference of a Civil Action to a Magistrate Judge form within two weeks—by May 21, 2025. If the court approved the form, Magistrate Judge Ricardo would conduct all further proceedings instead of the district court. The order stated that any appeal would go directly to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
If any party did not consent to the referral, the parties had to file a joint letter within the same two-week period stating that they did not consent, without identifying the party or parties withholding consent. The court stated that withholding consent would not result in adverse consequences. The parties also had to state whether they requested a settlement conference before the magistrate judge.
Additional Reminder and Effect
The court reminded the parties that settlements of claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act generally must be approved by the court, citing Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. This order did not resolve the underlying claims or enter judgment; it addressed referral and settlement procedures.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.