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

De La Verriere v. Elymar Restaurant Corporation

Judge
Paul Engelmayer
Docket
1:22-cv-05700
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
FlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In De La Verriere v. Elymar, Judge Engelmayer ordered a joint letter confirming the voluntary dismissal was not part of a settlement.

Who this affects

De La Verriere, the other people identified in the proposed collective action, and Elymar Restaurant Corp. and the other defendants were affected by the requirement to file the joint confirmation.

What happened

In De La Verriere v. Elymar Restaurant Corporation, the parties filed a notice of voluntary dismissal on November 14, 2022.

The court directed the parties to file a joint letter by November 22 confirming that the dismissal was not part of a settlement requiring court review. The letter must specifically confirm that the dismissal was not obtained through any payment, promise, or other benefit from the defendants.

Judge Paul A. Engelmayer issued this order on November 16, 2022. The order directed the requested filing and did not decide the underlying claims.

The detailed version

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

Case
De La Verriere v. Elymar Restaurant Corporation · No. 1:22-cv-05700
Judge
Paul Engelmayer
Date
Nov. 16, 2022

Background

De La Verriere brought the case on behalf of herself and others similarly situated in a proposed collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Elymar Restaurant Corp. and other defendants were named in the caption.

On November 14, 2022, the parties filed a notice of voluntary dismissal. The opinion does not provide further details about the underlying claims or the reasons for the proposed dismissal.

Order

The court directed the parties to file a joint letter by November 22, 2022. They must confirm that the stipulation of voluntary dismissal was not part of a settlement requiring court review. In particular, they must confirm that the dismissal was not secured through any payment, promise, or other benefit offered by a defendant.

The order directed the parties to provide this confirmation. It did not decide the merits of the underlying claims.

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.