Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 3, 2025

Isakov v. Little Beet Table, LLC

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:25-cv-01594
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Isakov v. Little Beet Table, Judge Ronnie Abrams discontinued the case after a settlement in principle, without costs and allowing restoration within 45 days.

Who this affects

Simon Isakov, Little Beet Table, LLC, and the putative group of similarly situated people identified in the caption. The case was closed subject to a possible application to restore it within 45 days.

What happened

In Isakov v. Little Beet Table, the Court was told that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not provide the settlement’s terms.

The Court discontinued the action without costs to either party and without prejudice to restoring it if an application was made within 45 days. The Clerk was directed to close the case. If the parties wanted the Court to keep authority to enforce the settlement, they had to put its terms on the public record and obtain the Court’s approval within that same period.

Judge Ronnie Abrams issued the order on June 3, 2025. The order did not decide the underlying claims or state whether the settlement received final approval.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Isakov v. Little Beet Table, LLC · No. 1:25-cv-01594
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
June 3, 2025

Background

Simon Isakov brought the action on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated against Little Beet Table, LLC. The Court was informed that the case had been settled in principle. The opinion does not describe the claims or provide the settlement 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 within 45 days. It stated that an application to reopen filed after that deadline might 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—the authority to oversee enforcement—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 45-day period. The order did not adjudicate the underlying claims or state whether the settlement had received final approval.

Disposition

Judge Ronnie Abrams discontinued the action without costs and without prejudice to restoration within the stated 45-day period. The order is procedural and does not resolve the merits of the claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.