Maddy v. Express, LLC
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:22-cv-04999
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Maddy v. Express, Judge Abrams discontinued the settled-in-principle case without prejudice to restoration within 60 days.
Veronica Maddy, the other people represented in the action, and Express, LLC. The case was closed, subject to a possible application to restore it within 60 days. The order also set conditions for the court to retain authority to enforce any settlement.
What happened
Veronica Maddy brought this action on behalf of herself and others similarly situated against Express, LLC. The court was told that the parties had settled in principle, but the order does not describe the settlement or say that it had been finally approved.
The court discontinued the action without costs to either side. The action could be restored to the court’s docket if an application was made within 60 days of the order; applications filed later could be denied solely because they were late. The Clerk was directed to close the case.
Judge Ronnie Abrams also said that, if the parties wanted the court to retain authority to enforce a settlement, they had to place the settlement terms on the public record and obtain the court’s approval within the same 60-day period.
The detailed version
- Maddy v. Express, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-04999
- Ronnie Abrams
- Oct. 26, 2022
Background
Veronica Maddy filed this action on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated against Express, LLC. The court stated that it had been informed that the case had been settled in principle. The order does not provide the settlement’s terms, identify the claims’ merits, or state that the settlement received final approval.
Order
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 60 days. The order states that an application filed after that period may be denied solely because it was late. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.
The court also addressed possible enforcement of the settlement. If the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction, meaning authority to enforce the settlement agreement, they had to place the agreement’s terms on the public record and have the court approve the agreement within the same 60-day period. The order cites Hendrickson v. United States, 791 F.3d 354, 358 (2d Cir. 2015), but does not otherwise explain the cited decision.
Disposition and significance
This was a procedural closure based on the reported settlement in principle, not a decision on the underlying claims. The action was discontinued, the case was closed, and the order preserved a 60-day opportunity to seek restoration. It did not decide whether either side was right on the merits or resolve the settlement’s terms.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.