Carrico v. Dr. In The Kitchen, LLC
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:23-cv-00923
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Carrico v. Dr. In The Kitchen, LLC, Judge Abrams discontinued the settled case without costs, allowing restoration within 60 days.
Joyce Carrico, the putative class members she sought to represent, and Dr. In The Kitchen, LLC. The case was closed after the reported settlement, subject to the stated 60-day restoration period.
What happened
In Carrico v. Dr. In The Kitchen, LLC, Joyce Carrico brought the action individually and on behalf of others similarly situated against Dr. In The Kitchen, LLC. The court was informed that the case had been settled.
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 was made within 60 days. The court did not disclose the settlement’s terms or decide the underlying claims.
Judge Abrams also directed that any request for the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement must place the agreement’s terms on the public record and obtain the court’s approval within the same 60-day period. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.
The detailed version
- Carrico v. Dr. In The Kitchen, LLC · No. 1:23-cv-00923
- Ronnie Abrams
- Mar. 21, 2023
Background
The opinion states that the court was informed that the case had been settled. Joyce Carrico was the plaintiff, suing individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. Dr. In The Kitchen, LLC was the defendant.
Court’s action
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 60 days. The court stated that an application to reopen filed after that period could be denied solely because it was late. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.
The court also stated that, if the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—meaning continuing 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 60-day period.
What the ruling means
The order closed the case based on the reported settlement. It did not describe the settlement’s terms and did not decide the merits of the claims. The court discontinued the action rather than dismissing it, and expressly allowed a timely application to restore it to the docket.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.