Spark Technologies, Inc. a/k/a iQsim v. Emsixteen Consulting, Inc.
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:25-cv-01389
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Spark Technologies, Inc. a/k/a IQSIM v. Emsixteen Consulting, Inc., Judge Abrams discontinued the settled case without costs and without prejudice to timely restoration.
Spark Technologies, Inc. a/k/a IQSIM, Emsixteen Consulting, Inc., and Michael Katzenellenbogen, individually; the case was closed on the court’s docket, subject to the stated deadline for seeking restoration.
What happened
Spark Technologies, Inc. a/k/a IQSIM sued Emsixteen Consulting, Inc. and Michael Katzenellenbogen, individually. The court was told that the case had been settled in principle.
The court discontinued the action without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring it to the court’s docket if an application was made before May 15, 2025. Any request to reopen filed after that date could be denied solely because it was late.
Judge Ronnie Abrams also stated that, if the parties wanted the court to retain authority to enforce a settlement agreement, they had to place the agreement’s terms on the public record and obtain the court’s approval within the same thirty-day period. The Clerk was directed to close the case.
The detailed version
- Spark Technologies, Inc. a/k/a iQsim v. Emsixteen Consulting, Inc. · No. 1:25-cv-01389
- Ronnie Abrams
- May 2, 2025
Background The opinion states that Spark Technologies, Inc. a/k/a IQSIM’s case against Emsixteen Consulting, Inc. and Michael Katzenellenbogen, individually, had been settled in principle. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the settlement’s substantive terms.
Order 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 before May 15, 2025. The order states that an application filed after that date could be denied solely on that basis.
The court further ordered that, if the parties sought to have the court retain jurisdiction—meaning continuing 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 thirty-day period. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.
Effect of the Order This was a procedural order ending the case based on the reported settlement in principle. The court did not decide the underlying legal claims. The order does not state that the settlement was fully executed or disclose its terms.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.