Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 13, 2023

Maddy v. Gurneys Inn Resort & Spa LLC

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:22-cv-05886
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Maddy v. Gurneys Inn Resort & Spa, Judge Abrams closed the settled case without costs, while allowing restoration within 30 days.

Who this affects

Veronica Maddy, the people she sought to represent, and Gurneys Inn Resort & Spa LLC. The case was closed after the court was told it had been settled, subject to a possible application to restore the action within 30 days.

What happened

Maddy v. Gurneys Inn Resort & Spa involved Veronica Maddy’s case against Gurneys Inn Resort & Spa LLC, brought on behalf of herself and others similarly situated. The court was told that the case had been settled.

The court ordered the action discontinued without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring it to the court’s docket if an application was made within 30 days. The court also stated that any request to reopen filed after that period might be denied solely because it was late, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.

Judge Ronnie Abrams further stated that if the parties wanted the court to retain authority to enforce the settlement, they had to place the settlement terms on the public record and obtain the court’s approval within the same 30-day period.

The detailed version

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

Case
Maddy v. Gurneys Inn Resort & Spa LLC · No. 1:22-cv-05886
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
July 13, 2023

Background

Veronica Maddy brought this action on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated against Gurneys Inn Resort & Spa LLC. The court stated that it had been reported that the case was settled. The opinion does not provide the settlement terms or describe the claims’ underlying facts.

Court’s Order

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 30 days. The court stated that any application to reopen filed after that period might be denied solely because it was late.

The court also stated that, if the parties wanted it to retain jurisdiction—meaning authority—to enforce the settlement agreement, the settlement terms had to be placed on the public record and approved by the court within the same 30-day period. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.

Disposition

This was a procedural order ending the case based on the reported settlement; the court did not decide the underlying claims. The action was discontinued without costs and without prejudice to a timely application to restore it. The court did not state whether it approved the settlement itself. Judge Ronnie Abrams signed the order on July 13, 2023.

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.