Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 20, 2023

Reid v. UVVU Inc.

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:22-cv-10541
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Reid v. UVVU Inc., Judge Abrams discontinued the settled case without costs, allowing restoration within 45 days.

Who this affects

Nadreca Reid, UVVU Inc., and the people Reid sought to represent in the action.

What happened

Reid v. UVVU Inc. was brought by Nadreca Reid individually and on behalf of others described as similarly situated against UVVU Inc., doing business as Solaware. The court was informed that the case had been settled.

The order discontinued the action without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring it to the court’s docket if an application was made within 45 days. It did not describe the settlement’s terms or decide the underlying claims.

Judge Ronnie Abrams also directed that any request to reopen the case be filed within 45 days and directed the clerk to close the case. The order stated that the settlement terms would have to be placed on the public record and approved by the court if the parties wanted the court to retain authority to enforce the settlement.

The detailed version

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

Case
Reid v. UVVU Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-10541
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
Apr. 20, 2023

Background

Nadreca Reid sued UVVU Inc., doing business as Solaware, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. The opinion does not describe the claims or the settlement terms. The court was informed that the case had settled.

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 45 days. The court also stated that any application to reopen had to be filed within 45 days of the order, and that a later application could be denied solely because it was late.

The court further stated that, if the parties wanted it to retain jurisdiction—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 45-day period. The clerk was directed to close the case. The order did not resolve the underlying claims or state whether the settlement was approved on its merits.

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.