Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 16, 2022

Hancock v. Schwartz Vays

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:22-cv-02016
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Hancock v. Schwartz Vays, Judge Abrams discontinued the settled case without prejudice to timely restoration.

Who this affects

Roxanne Hancock; defendants Schwartz Vays, Schwartz Vays NY, LLC, Axela Technologies, Inc., and John Does 1-25; and the people Hancock purported to represent.

What happened

In Hancock v. Schwartz Vays, Roxanne Hancock sued Schwartz Vays, Schwartz Vays NY, LLC, Axela Technologies, Inc., and John Does 1-25 on behalf of herself and others described as similarly situated. The court said the parties had reported reaching a settlement agreement.

The court discontinued the action without costs to any party. It allowed a request to restore the case to the court’s docket if filed within 30 days of the order.

Judge Ronnie Abrams also directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. The order did not state the settlement’s terms, and it said that any request for the court to retain authority to enforce the settlement had to place those terms on the public record and obtain the court’s approval within the same 30-day period.

The detailed version

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

Case
Hancock v. Schwartz Vays · No. 1:22-cv-02016
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
June 16, 2022

Background

Roxanne Hancock brought this action on behalf of herself and all others described in the complaint as similarly situated. The defendants were Schwartz Vays, Schwartz Vays NY, LLC, Axela Technologies, Inc., and John Does 1-25. The order states that the parties reported reaching an agreement to settle the case but does not describe the agreement’s terms.

Disposition

The court ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring the action to the court’s docket if an application to restore it was made within 30 days. The court warned that an application filed after that period could be denied solely because it was late. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.

Settlement Enforcement

The court stated that, if the parties wanted it to retain authority to enforce the settlement agreement, the agreement’s terms had to be placed on the public record and approved by the court within the same 30-day period. Judge Ronnie Abrams signed the order on June 16, 2022.

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.