Miller v. Constar Financial Services, LLC
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:24-cv-07944
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Miller v. Constar Financial Services, Judge Abrams discontinued the settled case without costs and without prejudice to timely restoration.
Glenn Miller, the others he represented, Constar Financial Services, LLC, and John Does 1–25 were affected by the discontinuance and case closure. The parties had 30 days to seek restoration or reopening, and to place settlement terms on the public record if they wanted the court to retain authority to enforce the settlement.
What happened
In Miller v. Constar Financial Services, the court was told that the case had been settled. The opinion does not describe the settlement’s terms.
The court discontinued the case without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring it to the court’s docket. Any request to restore or reopen the case had to be filed within 30 days of the order.
Judge Ronnie Abrams also directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. The court said that any request for it to retain authority to enforce the settlement had to place the settlement terms on the public record and obtain the court’s approval within the same 30-day period.
The detailed version
- Miller v. Constar Financial Services, LLC · No. 1:24-cv-07944
- Ronnie Abrams
- Feb. 21, 2025
Background
Glenn Miller brought the action on behalf of himself and others similarly situated against Constar Financial Services, LLC, and John Does 1–25. The court stated that it had been reported that the case was settled. The order did not provide the settlement’s terms or make findings about the underlying claims.
Ruling
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 ordered that, if the parties wanted the court to retain authority to enforce the settlement agreement, the settlement 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 close the case.
Effect
The order ended the case on the court’s docket based on the reported settlement, while preserving a limited opportunity to seek restoration or reopening within 30 days. It did not decide the merits of the underlying claims or state whether the court approved any settlement terms.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.