Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 29, 2021

Stevez v. Pace University

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:21-cv-06170
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Stevez v. Pace University, Judge Abrams closed the case after the parties reported reaching a settlement in principle.

Who this affects

Arturo Stevez, the people he sought to represent, and Pace University. The case was closed, subject to a possible application to restore it within 45 days.

What happened

Arturo Stevez brought this case against Pace University on behalf of himself and others similarly situated. The court was told that all parties had reached a settlement in principle.

The court discontinued the case without costs to any party. It allowed the case to be restored if an application was filed within 45 days.

Judge Ronnie Abrams directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. The order did not decide the underlying claims or state the settlement’s terms.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Stevez v. Pace University · No. 1:21-cv-06170
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
Sept. 29, 2021

Background

Arturo Stevez sued Pace University on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated. The opinion does not describe the claims or the settlement’s terms. It states only that the court was informed that all parties had reached a settlement in principle.

Court’s action

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 45 days. The court warned that an application filed after that period could be denied solely because it was late.

The court also stated that, if the parties wanted it to retain authority to enforce a settlement agreement, the agreement’s terms had to be placed on the public record and approved by the court within the same 45-day period. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.

Effect

The order ended the case on the court’s docket but did not decide the underlying legal claims. It also did not disclose or approve any settlement terms in the order itself.

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.