Imbert v. United States
- Tarnofsky
- 1:24-cv-03104
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Imbert v. United States, Judge Tarnofsky discontinued the action after a settlement in principle, subject to restoration by February 27, 2025.
Adrianny Imbert and the United States of America; the action was discontinued based on a settlement in principle.
What happened
In Imbert v. United States, the court was told that Adrianny Imbert and the United States of America had reached a settlement in principle.
The court discontinued the case without costs to either party and allowed it to be restored if the parties could not put their settlement in writing. Any request to restore the case had to be made by February 27, 2025.
United States Magistrate Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky ordered that the dismissal would be with prejudice if no request to restore the case was made by that date.
The detailed version
- Imbert v. United States · No. 1:24-cv-03104
- Tarnofsky
- Jan. 30, 2025
Background
The court was informed that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the settlement’s terms.
Order
Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party. The action could be restored to the court’s calendar if the parties were unable to memorialize their settlement in writing, but any application to restore the action had to be made by February 27, 2025.
If no application to restore the action was made by that date, the court stated that the dismissal would be with prejudice.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.