Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 10, 2024

Dalton v. RSVP Hospitality LLC

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:23-cv-01410
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Michael Dalton v. Boomerang Dining, Judge Abrams discontinued the resolved case without costs and without prejudice to timely restoration.

Who this affects

Michael Dalton and Boomerang Dining, LLC d/b/a Virtual Restaurant Concierge; the action was closed, subject to a possible application to restore it within 60 days.

What happened

Michael Dalton sued Boomerang Dining, LLC, doing business as Virtual Restaurant Concierge. The court was told that the case had been resolved.

The court discontinued the action without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring it if an application was made within 60 days. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.

Judge Ronnie Abrams also stated that any request to reopen filed after 60 days could be denied solely because it was late. If the parties wanted the court to retain authority to enforce a settlement agreement, they had to place the agreement on the public record and obtain the court’s approval within the same 60-day period.

The detailed version

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

Case
Dalton v. RSVP Hospitality LLC · No. 1:23-cv-01410
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
June 10, 2024

Background

The opinion states that the court was informed that the case had been resolved. It does not describe the underlying claims or the terms of any resolution.

Order

The court ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring the action to the court’s docket if an application to restore it was made within 60 days. It further stated that any application to reopen filed after that period could be denied solely because it was late. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.

The court also addressed possible enforcement of a settlement agreement. If the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—meaning authority—to enforce such an agreement, its terms had to be placed on the public record and approved by the court within the same 60-day period.

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.