Baldwin v. TMPL Lexington LLC d/b/a TMPL Lexington
Taryn Baldwin v. TMPL Lexington LLC d/b/a TMPL Lexington, Empire Holdings and Investments, LLC, and Patrick Walsh
- Ricardo
- 1:23-cv-09899
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Baldwin v. TMPL Lexington, Judge Ricardo struck the submitted settlement agreement and required a corrected agreement addressing unpaid-wage claims.
The parties and their counsel were required to submit a corrected settlement agreement addressing Taryn Baldwin’s unpaid-wage claims, and the previously filed agreement was removed from the docket.
What happened
In Taryn Baldwin v. TMPL Lexington LLC d/b/a TMPL Lexington, Empire Holdings and Investments, LLC, and Patrick Walsh, the parties asked the court to approve a settlement.
The court found that the submitted agreement did not address Baldwin’s claims for unpaid wages. It ordered counsel to submit an agreement addressing and fully resolving those claims by September 24, 2025.
Judge Henry J. Ricardo also struck the submitted agreement from the court docket because its filing appeared to have been unintentional. The order did not decide whether to approve the settlement.
The detailed version
- Baldwin v. TMPL Lexington LLC d/b/a TMPL Lexington · No. 1:23-cv-09899
- Ricardo
- Sept. 10, 2025
Background
The parties submitted a motion asking the court to approve a settlement agreement under the legal standard described in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. The court reviewed the materials supporting the motion and the attached agreement, filed as ECF No. 66-1.
Issue
The court observed that the submitted agreement did not address Plaintiff Taryn Baldwin’s claims for unpaid wages, identified as the Fourth through Ninth Causes of Action in the complaint.
Order
The court directed counsel to submit, by September 24, 2025, the agreement intended to settle and fully resolve Baldwin’s unpaid-wage claims for approval. The court also used its inherent authority—the court’s power to manage its own proceedings—to strike ECF No. 66-1 in its entirety because the filing appeared to have been unintentional. The Clerk of Court was directed to remove that filing from the docket. The opinion does not state that the court approved or denied the settlement-approval motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.