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 required settlement-fee and cost documentation before deciding whether to approve the settlement.
Taryn Baldwin and her counsel, who were directed to provide the retainer agreement and cost documentation; the order also concerns the parties’ request for settlement approval.
What happened
Taryn Baldwin and the defendants asked the court to approve a settlement agreement, including an award of attorneys’ fees and costs. The court reviewed the request under rules requiring scrutiny of certain employment settlements.
The request said Baldwin’s lawyer would receive about one-third of the total settlement, which was more than the lawyer’s calculated lodestar amount—the fee based on time worked and billing rates. But the parties did not provide the retainer agreement, and they provided no receipts for the claimed costs of $16,958.68.
In Taryn Baldwin v. TMPL Lexington LLC d/b/a TMPL Lexington, Empire Holdings and Investments, LLC, and Patrick Walsh, Judge Henry J. Ricardo directed Baldwin’s counsel to submit the retainer agreement and documentation supporting the costs by September 30, 2025. The order did not state that the settlement was approved or denied.
The detailed version
- Baldwin v. TMPL Lexington LLC d/b/a TMPL Lexington · No. 1:23-cv-09899
- Ricardo
- Sept. 16, 2025
Background
The parties submitted a motion asking the court to approve a settlement agreement under the Second Circuit’s requirements for reviewing certain employment settlements. The submission included a request for attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of costs.
Attorneys’ Fees
The parties’ joint letter stated that Taryn Baldwin had signed a retainer agreement providing her counsel with an amount approximating one-third of the total settlement. The letter also stated that this amount exceeded counsel’s lodestar—the fee calculation based on the attorney’s time and rates. The court said that it could not approve the attorneys’ fees without seeing the retainer agreement, and that approval would be premature without that documentation.
Costs
The parties claimed $16,958.68 in costs but provided no receipts. The court stated that adequate supporting documentation was required before those costs could be approved.
Order
Judge Henry J. Ricardo directed Baldwin’s counsel to submit, by September 30, 2025, a copy of the retainer agreement between Baldwin and her attorney and documentation supporting the claimed costs. The order did not approve or deny the settlement, attorneys’ fees, or costs.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.