Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 19, 2022

Maddy v. Buka

Full caption

Maddy v. Bobby Buka, M.D., Professional Corporation, d/b/a The Dermatology Specialists

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:22-cv-05653
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Maddy v. Bobby Buka, M.D., Judge Abrams discontinued the settled-in-principle action without costs, allowing possible restoration within 30 days.

Who this affects

Veronica Maddy, the putative similarly situated group she sought to represent, and Bobby Buka, M.D., PC, d/b/a The Dermatology Specialists.

What happened

Veronica Maddy brought this case individually and on behalf of others similarly situated against Bobby Buka, M.D., PC, doing business as The Dermatology Specialists.

The court was informed that the parties had settled the case in principle.

Judge Ronnie Abrams ordered the case discontinued without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring it within 30 days. She directed the Clerk of Court to close the case and explained that any settlement-enforcement request would require the agreement’s terms to be placed on the public record and approved by the court within that period.

The detailed version

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

Case
Maddy v. Buka · No. 1:22-cv-05653
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
Sept. 19, 2022

Background

Veronica Maddy sued Bobby Buka, M.D., PC, doing business as The Dermatology Specialists. She brought the action individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. The opinion states that the court was informed that the case had been settled in principle.

Court’s action

The court ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring it to the court’s docket if an application to restore the action was made within 30 days. The court stated that an application filed after that deadline could be denied solely because it was late.

The court also stated that, if the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce a 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. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.

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.