Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 29, 2024

Beauchamp v. Huggle Group, LLC

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:24-cv-01178
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Beauchamp v. Huggle Group, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the action after a settlement in principle, allowing restoration by June 28, 2024.

Who this affects

Kevin Beauchamp, the people he sought to represent, and Huggle Group, LLC. The action was discontinued, subject to the stated deadline and conditions for restoring it.

What happened

In Beauchamp v. Huggle Group, LLC, Kevin Beauchamp told the court that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The case was brought on behalf of Beauchamp and others described as similarly situated.

The court discontinued the action without costs to either party. The case could be restored if the parties could not put their settlement in writing, but any request to restore it had to be made by June 28, 2024. If no request was made by then, the dismissal would be with prejudice.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil issued the order on May 29, 2024. The order did not describe the settlement terms or decide the underlying claims.

The detailed version

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

Case
Beauchamp v. Huggle Group, LLC · No. 1:24-cv-01178
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
May 29, 2024

Background

Kevin Beauchamp filed the action on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated against Huggle Group, LLC. The opinion states that Beauchamp notified the court that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. It does not provide the settlement's terms or state whether any class had been certified.

Court’s Order

The court ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring the action to the court's calendar. Restoration was permitted if the parties were unable to memorialize their settlement in writing, provided that the application to restore the action was made by June 28, 2024. The court further ordered that, if no such application was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice.

Disposition and Effect

The court dismissed the action as stated in its conditional order; it did not resolve the parties' underlying legal claims. The order was entered by Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.