Vernaza Velazquez v. Valery Joseph Salon, LTD.
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:23-cv-02525
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Vernaza Velazquez v. Valery Joseph Salon, Judge Schofield approved the settlement and dismissed the action, allowing restoration within 30 days.
The plaintiff and defendants were affected: the court approved their settlement, dismissed the action, limited attorneys’ fees and costs to the settlement amounts, and canceled pending proceedings, conferences, and deadlines.
What happened
In Vernaza Velazquez v. Valery Joseph Salon, the parties asked the court to approve a proposed settlement. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the settlement’s terms.
The court approved the settlement as fair and reasonable, considering the nature and scope of the plaintiff’s claims and the risks and expenses of continuing the case. It dismissed the action in its entirety and awarded no attorneys’ fees or costs beyond the amounts provided in the settlement.
Judge Schofield allowed the action to be restored to the court’s calendar if an application was made within 30 days. The court declined to retain authority to enforce the settlement, dismissed any pending motions as moot, and canceled all conferences and deadlines.
The detailed version
- Vernaza Velazquez v. Valery Joseph Salon, LTD. · No. 1:23-cv-02525
- Lorna Schofield
- Aug. 15, 2023
Background
On August 11, 2023, the parties jointly moved for approval of a proposed settlement. The opinion does not state the underlying claims or provide the settlement’s specific terms.
Ruling
The court approved the settlement agreement as fair and reasonable. In reaching that decision, it considered the nature and scope of the plaintiff’s claims and the risks and expenses involved in additional litigation.
The court dismissed the action in its entirety and awarded no attorneys’ fees or costs beyond the amounts provided in the settlement. The dismissal was without prejudice to restoring the action to the court’s calendar, but an application to restore had to be made within 30 days of the order. The court stated that an application filed later could be denied solely because it was untimely.
The court declined to retain jurisdiction—that is, continuing authority—to enforce the settlement agreement and directed the parties to the appropriate forum if the agreement was breached. Any pending motions were dismissed as moot, and all conferences and deadlines were canceled.
Effect of the Order
The settlement resolved the federal court action, subject to the stated 30-day restoration provision. The order did not decide the underlying claims on their merits.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.