Kaloshi v. West Village Oasis, Inc.
- Barbara Moses
- 1:22-cv-04593
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Kaloshi v. West Village Oasis, Judge Moses granted Tenezaca’s dismissal without prejudice and ordered counsel to clarify any fees.
Alfonso Tenezaca’s claims were dismissed without prejudice, and he was terminated as a plaintiff. The remaining plaintiffs’ claims were unaffected. Tenezaca’s attorney was required to clarify any proposed fees or expenses by July 7, 2023.
What happened
In Kaloshi v. West Village Oasis, Alfonso Tenezaca asked to voluntarily dismiss his Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law claims. The defendants and Tenezaca confirmed that no payment, benefit, or settlement was involved.
The court granted Tenezaca’s motion and dismissed his claims without prejudice, meaning the claims were not permanently barred from being brought again. The court directed the remaining plaintiffs to file an amended complaint deleting Tenezaca’s claims without changing the other plaintiffs’ claims.
Judge Barbara Moses also ordered Tenezaca’s attorney to explain whether the attorney would seek fees or expenses from Tenezaca, and, if so, the amount and legal basis, by July 7, 2023. The order did not affect the remaining plaintiffs’ claims.
The detailed version
- Kaloshi v. West Village Oasis, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-04593
- Barbara Moses
- June 29, 2023
Background
Alfonso Tenezaca was one of the plaintiffs asserting claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. He filed an unopposed motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) to voluntarily dismiss his claims.
The court reviewed Tenezaca’s statement that the defendants had not offered or provided anything in exchange for dismissing the lawsuit. It also reviewed an affidavit from defendant Amir Ibrahim stating that the defendants had not provided payment or other benefits to Tenezaca and that Tenezaca had not signed a release. Based on those statements, the court found that there was no settlement and that no further review of the dismissal was needed.
Ruling on Tenezaca’s Claims
The court granted Tenezaca’s motion. Tenezaca’s claims were dismissed without prejudice. The court directed the plaintiffs to promptly file their proposed First Amended Complaint, which would delete Tenezaca’s claims but would not alter the claims of the remaining plaintiffs.
The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion at Docket 44 and terminate Alfonso Tenezaca as a plaintiff in the action. The order states that nothing in it affects the remaining plaintiffs’ claims.
Attorney-Fee Issue
Tenezaca’s attorney, Brandon D. Sherr, submitted an affirmation stating that Tenezaca had a contingent-fee agreement with counsel and that counsel believed Tenezaca might be responsible for fees and expenses if he unilaterally ended that agreement without cause. Counsel did not submit the agreement, identify the statutes and cases supporting that position, state whether fees or expenses would actually be charged, or state the amount of any charge.
Judge Barbara Moses directed counsel to comply fully with the court’s June 12, 2023 order by July 7, 2023. Counsel could instead state that no fees would be sought from Tenezaca. The court also observed that Tenezaca had asked his counsel to help dismiss his claims, rather than firing or replacing counsel, and explained that a charging lien generally attaches to a favorable verdict, decision, award, settlement, judgment, or final order. The court did not determine that Tenezaca owed a particular fee or expense amount.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.