Mitchell v. Gannett Co., Inc.
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:24-cv-00284
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Mitchell v. Gannett, Judge Abrams discontinued plaintiffs’ claims against FotoMoto after a reported settlement in principle, without prejudice to timely restoration.
Plaintiffs Steven Mitchell and Brian Spurlock and Defendant Bay Photo, LLC d/b/a FotoMoto. The claims against FotoMoto were discontinued, with possible restoration if requested within 30 days, and FotoMoto was terminated as a party.
What happened
In Mitchell v. Gannett Co., Inc., the court was told that Steven Mitchell and Brian Spurlock had reached a settlement in principle with Bay Photo, LLC, doing business as FotoMoto.
The court discontinued the plaintiffs’ claims against FotoMoto without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring those claims within 30 days. The court also directed the clerk to terminate FotoMoto as a defendant.
Judge Ronnie Abrams ordered that any request to reopen the claims be filed within 30 days of the order. The order did not state that the settlement had been finalized; it also said that any request for the court to retain authority to enforce the settlement had to place the settlement terms on the public record and receive the court’s approval within that period.
The detailed version
- Mitchell v. Gannett Co., Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-00284
- Ronnie Abrams
- July 8, 2024
Background
The court stated that it had been informed that Plaintiffs Steven Mitchell and Brian Spurlock had reached a settlement in principle with Defendant Bay Photo, LLC, doing business as FotoMoto.
Court’s Action
The court ordered that Plaintiffs’ claims against FotoMoto be discontinued, without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring the claims to the court’s docket if an application to restore them was made within 30 days. The court warned that an application filed after that period could be denied solely because it was late.
The court further ordered that, if the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—meaning 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 30-day period. The clerk was directed to terminate FotoMoto as a party to the action.
Disposition
This was a procedural order discontinuing the claims against FotoMoto based on a reported settlement in principle. The opinion did not decide the merits of those claims or state that the settlement had been finalized.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.