Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 29, 2021

Hedges v. William Howard Taft University

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:20-cv-08454
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Hedges v. William Howard Taft University, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the action after the parties reached a settlement in principle.

Who this affects

The order affected Donna Hedges, the people she sought to represent, and William Howard Taft University by discontinuing the action subject to the stated restoration deadline.

What happened

Donna Hedges brought Hedges v. William Howard Taft University on behalf of herself and other similarly situated people. The opinion says the parties reached a settlement in principle, but it does not describe the claims or settlement terms.

The court ordered the action discontinued without costs to any party. It allowed either side to seek restoration of the case by March 1, 2021.

Judge Vyskocil ordered that, if no restoration request was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice. The court also postponed all other dates and deadlines indefinitely.

The detailed version

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

Case
Hedges v. William Howard Taft University · No. 1:20-cv-08454
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
Jan. 29, 2021

Background

Donna Hedges brought this putative class action on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated against William Howard Taft University. The court received a letter from Hedges stating that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not state the underlying claims or the terms of the proposed settlement.

Ruling

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 if an application to restore it was made by March 1, 2021. “Without prejudice” in this context meant that the action could be restored if the stated deadline was met. The court further ordered that, if no application to restore the action was made by March 1, 2021, the dismissal would be with prejudice. The court adjourned all other dates and deadlines indefinitely.

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.