Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 28, 2021

Qazi v. Mazs Mart Corp.

Judge
Gabriel Gorenstein
Docket
1:20-cv-11092
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
EmploymentCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Qazi v. Mazs Mart, Judge Abrams directed the parties to choose how to proceed after reporting a settlement in their Fair Labor Standards Act case.

Who this affects

Usman Qazi, Mazs Mart Corp., and Masroor Malik were required to choose by June 11, 2021, whether to consent to proceedings before Magistrate Judge Gorenstein, voluntarily dismiss the case without prejudice, or seek court approval of their settlement. Materials used for settlement approval could become public.

What happened

In Qazi v. Mazs Mart Corp. and Masroor Malik, the parties reported that court-ordered mediation had occurred and that they had reached an agreement on all issues.

The court directed the parties to take one of three steps by June 11, 2021: agree to have Magistrate Judge Gorenstein handle future proceedings, file a voluntary dismissal without prejudice, or ask the court to approve the settlement by explaining why it was fair and reasonable and providing supporting materials, including billing records for attorney fees and costs.

Judge Ronnie Abrams also warned that materials used to decide whether the settlement was fair could be filed publicly. The court stated that it would not approve agreements broadly waiving unrelated claims or barring negative statements about the defendants unless the agreement allowed truthful statements about the plaintiffs’ experience litigating the case.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Qazi v. Mazs Mart Corp. · No. 1:20-cv-11092
Judge
Gabriel Gorenstein
Date
May 28, 2021

Background

The opinion states that this was a Fair Labor Standards Act case involving Usman Qazi as plaintiff and Mazs Mart Corp. and Masroor Malik as defendants. The court was informed that court-ordered mediation had taken place and that the parties had reached an agreement on all issues.

Court’s Order

The court ordered the parties to take one of three actions by June 11, 2021:

  1. Consent to conducting all further proceedings before Magistrate Judge Gorenstein by completing the required consent form. The court stated that choosing not to proceed before Judge Gorenstein would not result in adverse substantive consequences.
  2. Submit a stipulation or notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
  3. 3. Submit a joint letter explaining why the settlement was fair and reasonable and should be approved, along with supporting materials, including contemporaneous billing records for attorney fees and costs provided for in the settlement agreement.

Settlement-Approval Conditions

The court noted that documents on which it relied in deciding whether the settlement was fair would be filed on the public docket because judicial documents are generally presumed to be publicly accessible. It also stated that it would not approve settlement terms that broadly waived practically any possible claim against the defendants, including unrelated or unknown claims. The court further stated that it would not approve terms barring plaintiffs from making negative statements about the defendants unless the agreement included an exception allowing truthful statements about the plaintiffs’ experience litigating the case.

Disposition

The order directed the parties to select one of the three listed courses of action. It did not itself approve the settlement or enter a dismissal. Judge Ronnie Abrams signed the order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.