Hess v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc.
- 1:21-cv-04099
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Hess v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., the court granted dismissal on January 25, 2023, closed the case, and allowed refiling in state court.
The eight named plaintiffs and the other people they sought to represent were affected by dismissal of the federal case. Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. obtained dismissal, while the judgment stated that the plaintiffs could file in state court.
What happened
In Hess v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., Donald Hess and seven other named plaintiffs sued Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. individually and for others similarly situated. The opinion does not state the underlying claims or the reasons for dismissal.
The court adopted the report and recommendation in full and granted Bed Bath & Beyond’s motion to dismiss. It dismissed the case without prejudice to the plaintiffs filing in state court.
The court stated that the plaintiffs’ failure to make timely objections, despite clear notice, prevented appellate review and ordered the case closed. The judge is not identified in the provided text; the judgment was signed by Ruby J. Krajick as Clerk of Court.
The detailed version
- Hess v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-04099
- Jan. 25, 2023
Background
Donald Hess, Elizabeth Padilla, Judith Holland, Tika Jones, Harry Lichtman, Dawn Mesa, Alexandria Smith, and Emily Vahue sued Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. They brought the case individually and on behalf of others described as similarly situated. The provided judgment does not identify the claims or explain the underlying dispute.
Ruling
The court adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. It granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the case without prejudice to the plaintiffs filing in state court. “Without prejudice” means the judgment did not bar the plaintiffs from bringing the matter in state court, as stated in the judgment.
The judgment also states that the plaintiffs did not make timely objections despite the clear notice provided in the Report and Recommendation. For that reason, the court said appellate review of the decision was precluded. The case was closed.
Disposition
The defendant’s motion to dismiss was granted. The case was dismissed without prejudice to filing in state court. The provided text does not identify the judge; Ruby J. Krajick signed as Clerk of Court.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.