Roberts v. American Golf Corporation
- 1:23-cv-06000
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Roberts v. American Golf Corporation, the court entered a $410,000 judgment after Roberts accepted the defendants’ Rule 68 offer.
Selwyn Roberts obtained a $410,000 judgment against American Golf Corporation and Michael Gutierrez, also known as Michael Doe. The judgment is inclusive of attorneys’ fees, costs, and interest, and the defendants are jointly and severally responsible.
What happened
In Roberts v. American Golf Corporation, Selwyn Roberts accepted the defendants’ offer of judgment under Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The court entered judgment for Roberts against American Golf Corporation and Michael Gutierrez, also known as Michael Doe, jointly and separately, for $410,000. The amount includes attorneys’ fees, costs, and interest.
The court, whose judge is not identified clearly in the opinion text, directed that judgment be entered and the case closed.
The detailed version
- Roberts v. American Golf Corporation · No. 1:23-cv-06000
- Mar. 13, 2024
Background
Selwyn Roberts brought this case against American Golf Corporation and Michael Gutierrez, also known as Michael Doe, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims.
On March 8, 2024, Roberts filed a notice accepting the defendants’ offer of judgment under Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 68 provides a procedure for a party to offer judgment, which the opposing party may accept.
Ruling
The court ordered, adjudged, and decreed that Roberts had judgment against American Golf Corporation and Michael Gutierrez jointly and severally for $410,000. “Jointly and severally” means that the defendants were each responsible for the judgment under the order. The $410,000 amount includes attorneys’ fees, costs, and interest.
The opinion states that the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has explained that, once a Rule 68 offer is accepted, the district court has no discretion not to enter judgment. The Clerk’s Office was therefore requested to enter the judgment and close the case.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.