Comet v. Love & War Associates, LLC
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:24-cv-05566
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Comet v. Love & War, Judge Abrams discontinued the reported-settled case without costs, allowing restoration within 30 days.
Renee Comet and Love & War Associates, LLC; the action was closed after the court was told it had settled, subject to a 30-day period for seeking restoration or reopening.
What happened
In Renee Comet v. Love & War Associates, LLC, the court was told that the case had been settled.
The court discontinued the action without costs to either party and without prejudice to restoring it if an application was made within 30 days. The court also directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
Judge Ronnie Abrams said any request to reopen filed after 30 days could be denied on that basis, and explained that any request for the court to retain authority to enforce the settlement had to place the agreement on the public record and receive the court’s approval within the same period.
The detailed version
- Comet v. Love & War Associates, LLC · No. 1:24-cv-05566
- Ronnie Abrams
- Aug. 29, 2024
Background
The court stated that it had been reported that the case was settled. The opinion does not provide the settlement’s terms or describe the claims’ underlying facts.
Court’s Action
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 30 days. It directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
The court further stated that any application to reopen the action had to be filed within 30 days of the order, and that an application filed later could be denied solely because it was late. If the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—authority to enforce—the 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.
Result
Judge Ronnie Abrams discontinued the action and closed the case under those conditions. The opinion did not decide the merits of the parties’ underlying dispute.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.