Abuladze v. Apple Commuter, Inc..

S.D. New York

Abuladze v. Apple Commuter, Inc..

DecidedDecember 19, 2023

Docket1:22-cv-08684

StatusUnknown

This text of Abuladze v. Apple Commuter, Inc.. (Abuladze v. Apple Commuter, Inc..) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Abuladze v. Apple Commuter, Inc.., (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK KAKHA ABULADZE, et al., Plaintiffs, -v- CIVIL ACTION NO.: 22 Civ. 08684 (GHW) (RFT) APPLE COMMUTER, INC., et al., ORDER Defendants. ROBYN F. TARNOFSKY, United States Magistrate Judge. On November 29, 2023, I ordered Plaintiffs to show cause why the claims against Defendants Millennium Hilton, Hilton Manhattan/Westgate, Hilton Garden Inn (52) and Hilton Garden Inn (54) should not be dismissed without prejudice (see ECF 68); they were instructed to do so by filing an affidavit or declaration specifying which of the Defendants with Hilton in their names is meant in each instance in which “Hilton” or “Hilton Garden Inn” is listed in the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), including in the spreadsheets within the SAC. On December 18, 2023, Plaintiffs responded by filing a declaration providing the requested information about Defendants Hilton Manhattan/Westgate, Hilton Garden Inn (52) and Hilton Garden Inn (54) and stating that Exhibit 3 to the declaration was a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Defendant Millennium Hilton. (ECF 74, 12/18/23 Decl. of Vano Haroutunian.) However, the filing did not contain such a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (the filing included only Exhibits 1 and 2, neither of which was a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal). Accordingly, if Plaintiffs wish to dismiss Defendant Millennium Hilton voluntarily, they are

ORDERED to file on the docket by December 22, 2023, a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Defendant Millennium Hilton. Such notice should state whether there has been a settlement between Plaintiffs and Defendant Millennium Hilton. See Samake v. Thunder Lube, Inc., 24 F.4th 804, 811 (2d Cir. 2022) (“[I]n the absence of a settlement, the notice of dismissal should be so- ordered.”); see also Morales v. Next Stop 2006 Inc., No. 22-CV-3311 (JLR) (JLC), 2022 WL 17348382, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 1, 2022) (finding Cheeks review unnecessary in Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal where the parties neither settled nor “raised concerns of a covert settlement”), report and recommendation adopted, 2022 WL 17811401 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2022). Dated: New York, New York December 19, 2023 SO ORDERED. “| Nua A\ ROBYN F. TARNOFSKY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK KAKHA ABULADZE, et al., Plaintiffs, -v- CIVIL ACTION NO.: 22 Civ. 08684 (GHW) (RFT) APPLE COMMUTER, INC., et al., ORDER Defendants. ROBYN F. TARNOFSKY, United States Magistrate Judge. On November 29, 2023, I ordered Plaintiffs to show cause why the claims against Defendants Millennium Hilton, Hilton Manhattan/Westgate, Hilton Garden Inn (52) and Hilton Garden Inn (54) should not be dismissed without prejudice (see ECF 68); they were instructed to do so by filing an affidavit or declaration specifying which of the Defendants with Hilton in their names is meant in each instance in which “Hilton” or “Hilton Garden Inn” is listed in the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), including in the spreadsheets within the SAC. On December 18, 2023, Plaintiffs responded by filing a declaration providing the requested information about Defendants Hilton Manhattan/Westgate, Hilton Garden Inn (52) and Hilton Garden Inn (54) and stating that Exhibit 3 to the declaration was a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Defendant Millennium Hilton. (ECF 74, 12/18/23 Decl. of Vano Haroutunian.) However, the filing did not contain such a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (the filing included only Exhibits 1 and 2, neither of which was a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal). Accordingly, if Plaintiffs wish to dismiss Defendant Millennium Hilton voluntarily, they are

ORDERED to file on the docket by December 22, 2023, a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Defendant Millennium Hilton. Such notice should state whether there has been a settlement between Plaintiffs and Defendant Millennium Hilton. See Samake v. Thunder Lube, Inc., 24 F.4th 804, 811 (2d Cir. 2022) (“[I]n the absence of a settlement, the notice of dismissal should be so- ordered.”); see also Morales v. Next Stop 2006 Inc., No. 22-CV-3311 (JLR) (JLC), 2022 WL 17348382, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 1, 2022) (finding Cheeks review unnecessary in Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal where the parties neither settled nor “raised concerns of a covert settlement”), report and recommendation adopted, 2022 WL 17811401 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2022). Dated: New York, New York December 19, 2023 SO ORDERED. “| Nua A\ ROBYN F. TARNOFSKY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Abuladze v. Apple Commuter, Inc.., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abuladze-v-apple-commuter-inc-nysd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack