Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 8, 2024

Ricardo v. Ortiz

Judge
Robert Lehrburger
Docket
1:24-cv-01482
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Ricardo v. Ortiz, Judge Lehrburger dismissed the settled case, allowing reopening within 30 days if settlement was not completed.

Who this affects

Viviana M. Ricardo and defendants Jose Rodriguez Ortiz and Liam J. Transport, LLC; the dismissal also terminated pending motions and closed the case.

What happened

In Ricardo v. Ortiz, the parties told the court that they had settled all claims in the case. The opinion does not describe the claims or settlement terms.

The court dismissed the case without costs, except for costs the parties may have agreed to in their settlement. If the settlement was not completed within 30 days, either party could ask by letter to restore the case during that period.

Judge Robert W. Lehrburger also terminated pending motions, canceled remaining court dates and deadlines, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. The court said it would retain authority to enforce the settlement only if the agreement was publicly filed and the court entered an order doing so within 30 days.

The detailed version

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

Case
Ricardo v. Ortiz · No. 1:24-cv-01482
Judge
Robert Lehrburger
Date
Nov. 8, 2024

Background

The parties advised the court that all claims in the action had been settled. The opinion does not identify the claims or provide the settlement's substantive terms.

Court's Order

The court ordered that the action be dismissed without costs, except as the parties might agree in the settlement. The order did not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.

The dismissal was subject to a 30-day provision: if the settlement was not completed within 30 days of the order, either party could apply by letter during that period to restore the action to the court's calendar. Any request to reopen filed after that 30-day period could be denied solely because it was late.

The court also explained that, if the parties wanted the court to retain authority to enforce the settlement agreement, they had to file the agreement publicly and obtain a court order retaining that authority within the same 30-day period.

Other Dispositions

The court ruled that any pending motions were moot and ordered them terminated. It also directed the Clerk of Court to vacate remaining conference dates and other deadlines and to close the case.

Result

Judge Robert W. Lehrburger entered an order of dismissal based on the parties' reported settlement. The order resolved the action procedurally and did not decide the underlying claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.