Camacho v. City of New York
- Denise Cote
- 1:19-cv-11096
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Camacho v. City of New York, Judge Cote discontinued the settled case without costs, allowing restoration by January 21, 2021 before dismissal became with prejudice.
The six named plaintiffs, the proposed class of similarly situated people, the City of New York, and the named and unnamed correction-officer defendants.
What happened
Camacho v. City of New York was brought by six named plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated against the City of New York and correction officers. The court was told that the case had been settled.
The court discontinued the action without costs to any party and allowed either side to ask to restore it to the court’s calendar by January 21, 2021. The opinion does not provide the settlement’s terms.
Judge Denise Cote stated that if no application to restore the case was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Camacho v. City of New York · No. 1:19-cv-11096
- Denise Cote
- Dec. 21, 2020
Background
The plaintiffs were Kathy Camacho, Justine Rodriguez, Derick Mason, Nicole Fludd, Cynthia Neat, and Daquana McCall, acting on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated. The defendants were the City of New York and named correction officers, along with John/Jane Does 1–30. The court was informed that the case had been settled, but this order does not describe the settlement or its terms.
Order
The court ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party. The order allowed an application to restore the action to the court’s calendar if made by January 21, 2021. It further stated that, if no such application was made by that date, the dismissal of the action would be with prejudice.
Ruling
Judge Denise Cote entered an order of discontinuance based on the reported settlement. The order did not decide the underlying claims. Its conditional terms permitted restoration by January 21, 2021, after which the dismissal would be with prejudice if no restoration application was filed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.