Torres v. Capital One, N.A.
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:24-cv-08506
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Torres v. Capital One, Judge Abrams closed the case after a settlement in principle, allowing restoration within 30 days.
Maria Torres and Capital One Financial Corporation; the action was discontinued and closed, subject to a possible request to restore or reopen it within 30 days.
What happened
In Torres v. Capital One Financial Corporation, the court was told that the parties had reached a settlement in principle.
The court discontinued the case without costs to either 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 said that any request to reopen filed after 30 days could be denied on that basis, and that the parties could have the court retain authority to enforce a settlement only if they made its terms public and obtained the court’s approval within that period.
The detailed version
- Torres v. Capital One, N.A. · No. 1:24-cv-08506
- Ronnie Abrams
- Apr. 14, 2025
Background
The court stated that it had been informed that the case had been settled in principle. The opinion does not provide the settlement’s terms or describe the underlying claims.
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 request to restore it was made within 30 days. The court also directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
Any request to reopen the action had to be filed within 30 days of the order. The court stated that a later request could be denied solely because it was filed after that deadline. If the parties wanted the court to retain authority to enforce a 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.
Disposition
Judge Ronnie Abrams discontinued the action and directed that the case be closed, subject to the stated 30-day procedure for restoration or reopening. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.