Gibson v. Rivers and Hills Hospitality Group LLC
- Vyskocil
- 1:23-cv-00348
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
Gibson v. Rivers and Hills Hospitality, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the action after the parties reported a settlement in principle, subject to restoration by May 19.
Jason Gibson, the proposed group of similarly situated people, Rivers and Hills Hospitality Group LLC, and 100 Forsyth, LLC. The action was discontinued, with a possible application to restore it by May 19, 2023; otherwise, the dismissal became with prejudice.
What happened
Jason Gibson sued Rivers and Hills Hospitality Group LLC, doing business as Wayla, and 100 Forsyth, LLC, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated. The opinion does not describe the claims.
Gibson informed the court that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The order did not state the settlement’s terms.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil discontinued the action without costs and without prejudice to restoring it if the parties could not put their settlement in writing and an application to restore was made by May 19, 2023. If no application was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Gibson v. Rivers and Hills Hospitality Group LLC · No. 1:23-cv-00348
- Vyskocil
- Apr. 19, 2023
Background
Jason Gibson brought the action on behalf of himself and others similarly situated against Rivers and Hills Hospitality Group LLC, doing business as Wayla, and 100 Forsyth, LLC. The opinion does not identify the claims or provide further factual background.
Settlement and ruling
Gibson filed a letter informing the court that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The court therefore ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring the action to the court’s calendar if the parties were unable to memorialize their settlement in writing. Any application to restore the action had to be made by May 19, 2023. The order stated that if no application was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice.
Effect of the order
The order resolved the action based on the reported settlement in principle; it did not decide the underlying claims. The opinion does not state the settlement terms or whether the parties ultimately memorialized the settlement.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.