Bodiford v. Medrite Midtown West LLC
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:24-cv-05785
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Bodiford v. Medrite Midtown West LLC, Judge Schofield approved the settlement, dismissed the action with prejudice, and retained enforcement jurisdiction.
The plaintiffs, including Kelli Bodiford, and the defendants, including Medrite Midtown West LLC, are affected by the settlement approval and dismissal. The settlement’s terms are not included in the opinion.
What happened
In Bodiford v. Medrite Midtown West LLC, the parties asked the court to approve a proposed settlement on March 11, 2025. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims in detail.
The court approved the settlement as fair and reasonable, considering the nature and scope of the plaintiffs’ claims and the risks and expenses of further litigation. It dismissed the entire action with prejudice, awarded no additional attorneys’ fees or costs beyond the settlement amounts, and dismissed any pending motions as moot.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield also canceled all conferences and deadlines but retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement. If the settlement is breached, the parties may ask the court to restore the action to its calendar.
The detailed version
- Bodiford v. Medrite Midtown West LLC · No. 1:24-cv-05785
- Lorna Schofield
- Mar. 18, 2025
Background
On March 11, 2025, the parties moved for approval of a proposed settlement. The opinion does not provide details about the underlying claims beyond referring to the plaintiffs’ claims, their nature and scope, and the risks and expenses of additional litigation.
Rulings
The court approved the settlement agreement as fair and reasonable. The court cited decisions directing district courts to evaluate whether proposed settlements and attorneys’ fee awards are fair and reasonable.
The court ordered that the action be dismissed in its entirety and with prejudice. It also ordered that there would be no award of attorneys’ fees or costs beyond the amounts provided in the settlement. Any pending motions were dismissed as moot, and all conferences and deadlines were canceled.
The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement’s terms and conditions. If a party breaches the settlement, the parties may apply to restore the action to the court’s calendar.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.