Rhode-NYC, LLC v. Rhodedeodato Corp.
- Alvin Hellerstein
- 1:22-cv-05185
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Rhode-NYC v. Rhodedeodato, Judge Hellerstein dismissed the case after settlement terms were proposed, allowing restoration if settlement was not completed within 30 days.
Rhode-NYC, LLC and the defendants/counter-plaintiffs Hailey Rhode Bieber, Rhodedeodato Corp., and HRBeauty, LLC; the order also canceled the case's pending court dates.
What happened
Rhode-NYC, LLC v. Rhodedeodato Corp. involved claims by Rhode-NYC, LLC against Rhodedeodato Corp., Hailey Rhode Bieber, and HRBeauty, LLC. The parties had reached agreement on the core terms of a settlement and expected it to resolve the case.
The parties jointly asked the court to pause discovery for 30 days so they could finalize the settlement instead of conducting depositions, exchanging more documents, and addressing discovery disputes. They said discovery would resume if the settlement was not completed.
Judge Alvin Hellerstein dismissed the case after a settlement was proposed. The order said either party could ask to restore the case by letter within 10 days after the 30-day period if the settlement was not completed, and it canceled all pending court dates.
The detailed version
- Rhode-NYC, LLC v. Rhodedeodato Corp. · No. 1:22-cv-05185
- Alvin Hellerstein
- Sept. 19, 2023
Background
Rhode-NYC, LLC sued Rhodedeodato Corp. and related defendants. The defendants identified in the motion were Hailey Rhode Bieber, Rhodedeodato Corp., and HRBeauty, LLC. The defendants had filed an answer and counterclaims, and Rhode-NYC had responded to those counterclaims.
The parties had previously participated in formal mediation and had received several extensions of the discovery schedule. The latest schedule set November 3, 2023, as the deadline for completing fact discovery and set a November 9, 2023 status conference concerning expert discovery.
Requested discovery stay
The parties jointly requested a 30-day stay of discovery through October 15, 2023. They stated that they had agreed on all core settlement terms and wanted time to finalize a comprehensive settlement agreement. They said the stay would avoid depositions, additional document production, and briefing concerning discovery disputes while they finalized the settlement.
The motion stated that, if the settlement was not completed, discovery would resume on October 16, 2023, with the fact-discovery deadline moving to December 4, 2023. The parties also stated that they expected to dismiss the case during the requested stay.
Ruling
The order states: “A suggestion of settlement having been made, this case is dismissed.” It further provides that, if the settlement was not completed within 30 days of the order—or within an authorized extended period—either party could apply by letter to restore the action within 10 days after that period ended. The order canceled all pending court dates and directed the Clerk to take the stated administrative action.
The opinion does not separately state that the requested discovery stay was granted or denied. It also does not describe the dismissal as either with prejudice or without prejudice.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.