Crumwell v. Belfor Franchise Group, LLC
- Vyskocil
- 1:23-cv-02142
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Crumwell v. Belfor Franchise Group, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the action after a settlement in principle, subject to restoration by August 15, 2023.
Denise Crumwell, Belfor Franchise Group LLC, and the similarly situated people included in the action were affected by the court’s conditional discontinuance. The action was discontinued without costs, with possible restoration by August 15, 2023 if the settlement could not be memorialized in writing; otherwise, the dismissal would be with prejudice.
What happened
Denise Crumwell brought this action on behalf of herself and other similarly situated people against Belfor Franchise Group LLC. The opinion says the parties informed the court that they had reached a settlement in principle.
The court discontinued the action without costs to any party. The action could be restored to the court’s calendar if the parties could not put their settlement in writing and an application to restore it was made by August 15, 2023.
If no application to restore the action was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice. Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil issued the order on June 30, 2023.
The detailed version
- Crumwell v. Belfor Franchise Group, LLC · No. 1:23-cv-02142
- Vyskocil
- June 30, 2023
Background
Denise Crumwell filed the action on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated against Belfor Franchise Group LLC. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims.
Settlement and disposition
The court received a letter from Crumwell stating 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.
The order required any application to restore the action to be made by August 15, 2023. If no such application was made by that date, the court stated that the dismissal would be with prejudice. The opinion does not resolve the underlying claims or state that the court approved a final written settlement.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.