Igartua v. Qube USA LLC
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:24-cv-07114
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Igartua v. Qube USA LLC, Judge Abrams discontinued the settled-in-principle case without prejudice to timely restoration.
Juan Igartua and Qube USA LLC; the case was closed after the court was told the parties had settled in principle.
What happened
In Igartua v. Qube USA LLC, the court was told that the parties had settled the case in principle. The order does not describe the settlement’s terms or decide the underlying dispute.
The court discontinued the action without costs to either party and without prejudice to restoring it if an application was made within 30 days. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.
Judge Ronnie Abrams also said that any request to reopen filed after 30 days could be denied on that basis alone. If the parties wanted the court to retain authority to enforce their settlement, they had to place the agreement on the public record and obtain the court’s approval within the same 30-day period.
The detailed version
- Igartua v. Qube USA LLC · No. 1:24-cv-07114
- Ronnie Abrams
- Apr. 1, 2025
Background
The court stated that it had been informed that the parties had settled the case in principle. The opinion does not provide the settlement’s terms and does not resolve the merits of the parties’ dispute.
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. The court stated that any application to reopen filed after that 30-day period could be denied solely because it was late. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.
The court also stated that, if the parties wanted it to retain jurisdiction—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 order cited Hendrickson v. United States, 791 F.3d 354, 358 (2d Cir. 2015).
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.