Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 25, 2024

Campbell v. Stuart H. Kaplan, M.D., Professional Corporation

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:23-cv-03680
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Campbell v. Stuart H. Kaplan, Judge Abrams discontinued the settled-in-principle case without prejudice to timely restoration and ordered it closed.

Who this affects

Jovan Campbell, Stuart H. Kaplan, M.D., Professional Corporation, and the people Campbell sought to represent were affected by the discontinuance and case closure. The parties had 30 days to seek restoration or to place settlement terms on the public record and obtain the court’s approval for retained enforcement authority.

What happened

Campbell v. Stuart H. Kaplan, M.D., Professional Corporation involved Jovan Campbell’s case against Stuart H. Kaplan, M.D., Professional Corporation, brought on behalf of herself and others similarly situated. The court was told the case had been settled in principle.

The court ordered the action discontinued without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring it if an application was made within 30 days. It also directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.

Judge Ronnie Abrams stated that any request to reopen filed after 30 days could be denied on that basis alone. If the parties wanted the court to keep authority to enforce a settlement, they had to place the agreement’s 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
Campbell v. Stuart H. Kaplan, M.D., Professional Corporation · No. 1:23-cv-03680
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
Jan. 25, 2024

Background

Jovan Campbell brought this action on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated against Stuart H. Kaplan, M.D., Professional Corporation. The court was informed that the case had been settled in principle. The order does not describe the claims or the settlement’s terms.

Order

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

The court also stated that, if the parties wanted it to retain jurisdiction—the 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 30-day period. The order did not decide the underlying claims or state that the settlement was approved.

Disposition

Judge Ronnie Abrams discontinued the action under the terms stated in the order and directed that the case be closed.

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.