Wheeler v. City of New York
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:24-cv-00469
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Wheeler v. City of New York, Judge Abrams discontinued the settled-in-principle case without prejudice to timely restoration.
Elsun Wheeler, Freddie Davis, the City of New York, and the other defendants. The case was closed, subject to a possible application to restore or reopen it within 30 days.
What happened
Wheeler v. City of New York was reported to have settled in principle, but the order did not describe or approve the settlement’s terms.
The court discontinued the action without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring it to the court’s docket. A request to restore or reopen the case must be filed within 30 days of the order.
Judge Ronnie Abrams directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. The order also said the court could retain jurisdiction to enforce a settlement only if the agreement’s terms were placed on the public record and approved by the court within the same 30-day period.
The detailed version
- Wheeler v. City of New York · No. 1:24-cv-00469
- Ronnie Abrams
- June 3, 2025
Background
The opinion states that the court was informed that the case had been settled in principle. It does not provide the settlement terms or make findings about the underlying claims.
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 within 30 days. The court stated that an application to reopen filed after that period may be denied solely because it was late.
The court also stated that, if the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—meaning 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 Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.
Effect and Classification
This order ended the case administratively based on the reported settlement in principle; it did not decide the merits of the parties’ underlying claims. The matter is therefore classified as a procedural order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.