Armstrong v. Blazin Wings Inc et al

Filing 92

Order to Vacate, For the foregoing reasons, the Rubin Order is vacated, the case is restored to the Court's active docket as to defendant Croft, and the entry of judgment for defendant Blazin Wings is vacated until the di sposition of defendant Croft is determined. Vacating 87 entry of Summary Judgment until the disposition of defendant Croft is determined; Vacating 86 Order Dismissing Case(60 Day Settlement Order), and Finding as Moot 89 Bill of Costs submitted by defendant Blazin Wings. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 3/23/16. (mflo, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Amy Armstrong,
Plaintiff,
v.
Blazin Wings, Inc.; Leon Curtis Croft,
individually and as an employee/agent of
Blazin Wings, Inc.,
Defendants.
______________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A: 3:15-610-JFA
ORDER VACATING
RUBIN ORDER AND
RESTORING CASE TO
COURT’S ACTIVE DOCKET

On February 23, 2016, this Court entered what has been come to be known in this
District as a “Rubin Order” conditionally dismissing the remaining claims in this case and
providing the parties with sixty days to consummate the settlement.
On Tuesday, March 22, 2016, this Court was informed by its docket clerk that a
dispute has arisen regarding the settlement of this case. Because the Rubin Order’s time
deadline will expire soon, this Court scheduled a quick conference call to discuss the
issue with the parties.
As a result of the conference call, the Court determined that the fairest course of
action at this point would be to simply vacate the Rubin Order, which has previously been
entered, and restore this case to the Court’s active docket. The Court would also vacate
the final judgment that was entered in favor of Blazin Wings, Inc. on this Court’s order
for summary judgment.

For the foregoing reasons, the Rubin Order (ECF No. 86) is vacated, the case is
restored to the Court’s active docket as to defendant Croft, and the entry of judgment for
defendant Blazin Wings (ECF No. 87) is vacated until the disposition of defendant Croft
is determined. 1
The Court will await further motions and briefing on issues that have arisen in this
case and will determine them as soon as reasonably possible after they are filed. 2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

March 23, 2016
Columbia, South Carolina

1

2

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

Vacating the judgment in favor of Blazin Wings, Inc. will eliminate the obligation on the plaintiff to
file her notice of appeal as to the Court’s ruling granting summary judgment in favor of Blazin Wings,
Inc. at this time.
The parties should also note that the Bill of Costs filed by defendant Blazin Wings, Inc. on March 22,
2016 is now moot.

2