Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 3, 2020

Hedges v. Maryville University of Saint Louis

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:20-cv-06326
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Hedges v. Maryville University, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the action after the parties reported a settlement in principle, subject to restoration by December 4.

Who this affects

Donna Hedges, the putative class members, and Maryville University of Saint Louis; the action was discontinued subject to a December 4, 2020 restoration deadline.

What happened

Hedges v. Maryville University of Saint Louis was brought by Donna Hedges on behalf of herself and others similarly situated.

The parties told the court that they had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not describe the settlement’s terms.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil discontinued the case without costs to either party and allowed restoration to the court’s calendar if requested by December 4, 2020. If no request was made by then, the dismissal would be with prejudice.

The detailed version

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

Case
Hedges v. Maryville University of Saint Louis · No. 1:20-cv-06326
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
Nov. 3, 2020

Background

Donna Hedges brought this action on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated against Maryville University of Saint Louis. The court received a letter stating that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not provide the settlement’s terms or indicate that the court approved a final settlement.

Ruling

The court ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring it to the court’s calendar if an application to restore the action was made by December 4, 2020. The order further states that if no application was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice, meaning the action could not be restored.

Effect

The order ended the case subject to the stated restoration deadline. It did not decide the underlying claims or describe the parties’ settlement.

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.