Lawrence v. NYC Medical Practice, P.C.
- Gregory Woods
- 1:18-cv-08649
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Lawrence v. NYC Medical Practice, Judge Woods approved dismissal with prejudice, closed the case, and directed termination of pending motions.
The dismissal affected the remaining plaintiffs—Ms. Lawrence, Ms. Warner, and Ms. Rosado—and the defendants. The case was closed, and all pending motions and remaining dates were terminated or adjourned.
What happened
Lawrence v. NYC Medical Practice, P.C. involved three remaining plaintiffs—Ms. Lawrence, Ms. Warner, and Ms. Rosado—who were representing themselves after their attorneys withdrew. They told the court several times that they were not prepared to continue litigating and did not want to pursue their claims.
The defendants and plaintiffs submitted stipulations asking to dismiss the claims with prejudice, meaning the claims cannot be brought again. The defendants said the dismissal was not part of a settlement and that the plaintiffs received nothing in return. The court approved the dismissal under the rule governing court-approved dismissals.
Judge Gregory H. Woods directed the Clerk of Court to terminate all pending motions, adjourn the remaining dates, close the case, and mail the order to the plaintiffs by certified mail.
The detailed version
- Lawrence v. NYC Medical Practice, P.C. · No. 1:18-cv-08649
- Gregory Woods
- Feb. 17, 2025
Background
The case had been pending for almost six and a half years. The remaining plaintiffs were Ms. Lawrence, Ms. Warner, and Ms. Rosado. The opinion states that they were proceeding without counsel after their attorneys withdrew in September 2024 and that they had been unable to retain new counsel.
During several recent conferences held on the record, the plaintiffs told the court multiple times that they were not prepared to litigate the case and did not wish to pursue their claims.
The Proposed Dismissal
On February 14, 2025, the defendants filed a letter attaching stipulations of dismissal signed by defense counsel and each remaining plaintiff. The stipulations sought dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii).
The court explained that the parties should have submitted a stipulation under Rule 41(a)(2), because a stipulated dismissal settling claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act with prejudice requires district-court approval. The defendants represented that the dismissal was not the result of a settlement and that the plaintiffs received nothing of value for dismissing their claims.
Ruling
The court approved the parties’ stipulation of dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2). The order does not decide the merits of the plaintiffs’ underlying claims. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate all pending motions, adjourn all remaining dates, close the case, and mail a copy of the order to the plaintiffs by certified mail.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.