Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 9, 2024

Mitchell v. Gannett Co., Inc.

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:24-cv-00284
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Mitchell v. Gannett, Judge Abrams discontinued Plaintiffs’ claims against three settling defendants, allowing restoration applications within 30 days.

Who this affects

Plaintiffs Steven Mitchell and Brian Spurlock, and Defendants Southern Community Newspapers, Inc., Times-Journal, Inc., and Upland Software, Inc. The order discontinued the claims against the three settling defendants and terminated them as parties, while allowing an application to restore the claims within 30 days.

What happened

In Mitchell v. Gannett Co., Inc., Plaintiffs Steven Mitchell and Brian Spurlock reported reaching a settlement in principle with Southern Community Newspapers, Inc., Times-Journal, Inc., and Upland Software, Inc.

The court discontinued Plaintiffs’ claims against those three defendants without costs to any party. The claims could be restored if an application was filed within 30 days of the order. The Clerk was directed to terminate those defendants from the case.

Judge Ronnie Abrams also stated 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 the same 30-day period.

The detailed version

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

Case
Mitchell v. Gannett Co., Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-00284
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
Aug. 9, 2024

Background

The court was informed that Plaintiffs Steven Mitchell and Brian Spurlock had reached a settlement in principle with Defendants Southern Community Newspapers, Inc., Times-Journal, Inc., and Upland Software, Inc.

Court’s Order

The court ordered that Plaintiffs’ claims against Southern Community Newspapers, Inc., Times-Journal, Inc., and Upland Software, Inc. be discontinued without costs to any party. The order stated that the claims could be restored to the court’s docket if an application to restore them was filed within 30 days. Any application to reopen 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—that is, authority—to enforce the settlement agreement, the settlement’s terms had to be placed on the public record and approved by the court within the same 30-day period. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the three defendants as parties in the action.

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.