Herrera v. Another Ride Inc.
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:24-cv-05539
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Herrera v. Another Ride, Judge Abrams discontinued the settled case without costs, allowing restoration within 30 days.
Ivelisse Herrera and the defendants were affected: the settled action was closed without costs, but either side could seek restoration within 30 days. The order also addressed the conditions for the court to retain authority to enforce the settlement.
What happened
In Herrera v. Another Ride, Inc., the parties reported that they had settled the case. The order does not describe the underlying claims or settlement terms.
The court discontinued the case without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring it to the court’s docket within 30 days. The Clerk was directed to close the case.
Judge Ronnie Abrams also stated that any request to reopen filed after 30 days may be denied on that basis. The court could retain authority to enforce the settlement only if its terms were placed on the public record and approved by the court within the same period.
The detailed version
- Herrera v. Another Ride Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-05539
- Ronnie Abrams
- Mar. 20, 2025
Background
The parties reported to the court that the case had been settled. The opinion does not state the underlying claims, the settlement’s terms, or whether any party admitted liability.
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 a restoration request was made within 30 days. It directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
The order stated that any request to reopen the action had to be filed within 30 days of the order and that a later request could be denied solely because it was untimely. If the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement, the settlement terms had to be placed on the public record and approved by the court within that same 30-day period. The court did not decide the merits of the parties’ dispute.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.