Abdeldayem v. Giorgio's of Gramercy, Inc.
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:22-cv-04830
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Abdeldayem v. Giorgio’s of Gramercy, Judge Schofield vacated a prior settlement-review endorsement because this type of judgment offer did not require that review.
Hosam Abdeldayem, Giorgio’s of Gramercy, the other defendants identified as “et al.,” and their counsel are affected by the court’s decision to vacate the April 12 memo endorsement and issue a separate judgment.
What happened
In Abdeldayem v. Giorgio’s of Gramercy, the court had previously required the plaintiff’s lawyer to provide evidence supporting approval of the parties’ proposed resolution as fair and reasonable.
The plaintiff pointed out that a judgment offer made under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68(a) is not subject to that fairness review. The opinion explains that this review applies to a different type of dismissal.
Judge Schofield vacated the April 12, 2023, memo endorsement. The court stated that a judgment consistent with the parties’ proposed Rule 68 judgment would be issued separately.
The detailed version
- Abdeldayem v. Giorgio's of Gramercy, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-04830
- Lorna Schofield
- Apr. 14, 2023
Background
An April 12, 2023, order required counsel for Hosam Abdeldayem to file evidence allowing the court to determine whether the parties’ settlement was fair and reasonable under the Second Circuit’s decision in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc.
Rule 68 Judgment
Abdeldayem correctly argued that a judgment offer made under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68(a) is not subject to the fairness review described in Cheeks. The opinion states that the Cheeks review is limited to dismissals under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) with prejudice. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the settlement’s terms.
Ruling
The court vacated the memo endorsement dated April 12, 2023, identified as docket entry 34. The court stated that judgment consistent with the parties’ proposed Rule 68 judgment would issue separately. This order does not itself state the terms of that judgment.
Effect
The ruling removes the earlier requirement for supporting evidence directed to the Cheeks fairness review. The opinion does not state the separate judgment’s date or terms.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.