Garcia Alvarez v. Dyckman Electronics Center, Inc.
- Sarah Netburn
- 1:19-cv-09255
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Garcia Alvarez v. Dyckman Electronics, Judge Vyskocil deemed filings timely, declined sanctions, and reset the pretrial conference after learning no settlement existed.
Jamie Garcia Alvarez, the named defendants, their counsel, and any potential similarly situated plaintiffs were affected by the filing deadlines, the rescheduled pretrial conference, and the warning about possible sanctions.
What happened
Garcia Alvarez v. Dyckman Electronics Center, Inc. involved claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage-and-hour law. Counsel told the court that the parties had reached a settlement, so the court postponed a scheduled pretrial conference and required materials supporting court approval.
The parties missed the deadline to submit those materials. After the court ordered them to explain the delay, counsel said electronic filing problems prevented timely filing. The court accepted the submissions as timely and did not impose sanctions at that time.
The parties’ submissions showed that they had not actually reached a settlement. Judge Vyskocil ordered the parties to attend a telephone pretrial conference on April 15, 2021, submit a joint status letter by April 8, and warned that future violations could lead to sanctions, including monetary penalties, limits on claims or defenses, or dismissal of the action.
The detailed version
- Garcia Alvarez v. Dyckman Electronics Center, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-09255
- Sarah Netburn
- Mar. 3, 2021
Background
Jamie Garcia Alvarez brought claims individually and on behalf of others similarly situated against Dyckman Electronics Center, Inc., doing business under the names stated in the caption, and the other named defendants. The complaint asserted claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), a federal wage-and-hour statute. Because FLSA settlements require judicial approval in this context, the court previously directed the parties to submit information supporting their proposed settlement.
The parties initially told the court that they had reached a settlement. The court therefore postponed a pretrial conference and set a February 16, 2021 deadline for settlement materials. The parties did not meet that deadline. The court then ordered them to show why they should not be sanctioned and set a March 1, 2021 deadline for the required filings and explanations.
Court’s Action
Counsel responded on March 1 by email, explaining that they could not file the documents through the court’s electronic filing system at that time. They filed the responses electronically on March 2 and asked that the filings be treated as timely. The court found that electronic filing problems had prevented filing on March 1 and deemed the responses timely. It also declined, at that time, to impose sanctions on counsel for failing to comply with the earlier order.
The filings made clear that the parties had not actually reached a settlement. The court therefore ordered the parties to appear for the previously scheduled pretrial conference on April 15, 2021, at 10:00 a.m., by telephone. It required them to submit a joint status letter and identify trial-related issues by April 8, 2021, at 10:00 a.m.
Result and Effect
This order did not decide the underlying FLSA claims or approve a settlement. It deemed the parties’ filings timely, declined to impose sanctions at that time, and reinstated the pretrial conference schedule. Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil warned that failure to comply with court orders could result in monetary sanctions, limits on claims or defenses, or dismissal of the action.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.