Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 30, 2024

Toro v. Medicomm, Inc.

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:23-cv-00828
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Toro v. Medicomm, Judge Abrams discontinued the settled case without costs, allowing restoration within 30 days.

Who this affects

Andrew Toro, the similarly situated people he sought to represent, and Medicomm, Inc.; the order also directs the Clerk of Court to terminate pending motions and close the case.

What happened

Toro v. Medicomm, Inc. involved Andrew Toro, who brought the case for himself and others described as similarly situated, against Medicomm, Inc. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the settlement terms.

The court was told that the case had been settled. It therefore ordered the case discontinued without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring it to the court’s docket if an application was made within 30 days.

Judge Ronnie Abrams also directed the Clerk of Court to end any pending motions and close the case. The order 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 the same 30-day period.

The detailed version

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

Case
Toro v. Medicomm, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-00828
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
Aug. 30, 2024

Background

The opinion states that Andrew Toro brought the action on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated against Medicomm, Inc. The court was informed that the case had been settled. The opinion does not identify the claims, describe the settlement, or state whether the court approved the settlement.

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 30 days. It stated that any application to reopen filed after that period could be denied solely because it was late.

The court further stated that, if the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—that is, 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. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate any pending motions and close the case.

What the Order Does Not Decide

The order does not decide the merits of the underlying claims or state the settlement’s terms. It resolves the case procedurally based on the reported settlement.

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.