Andy Ryan Photographer, LLC v. Berk
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:25-cv-00558
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Andy Ryan Photographer v. Berk, Judge Abrams discontinued the settled-in-principle case without costs, allowing restoration within 45 days.
Andy Ryan Photographer, LLC, Bobby Berk, Bobby Berk Home Soho LLC, and Does 1–10; the case was closed, subject to a possible restoration application filed within 45 days.
What happened
Andy Ryan Photographer, LLC v. Berk was reported to have settled in principle, but the court did not decide the underlying claims.
The court discontinued the case without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring it if an application was filed within 45 days. A later application could be denied solely because it was late.
Judge Ronnie Abrams directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. The parties could ask the court to retain authority to enforce their settlement only if they placed its terms on the public record and obtained the court’s approval within 45 days.
The detailed version
- Andy Ryan Photographer, LLC v. Berk · No. 1:25-cv-00558
- Ronnie Abrams
- June 4, 2025
Background
The court stated that it had been informed that Andy Ryan Photographer, LLC’s case against Bobby Berk, Bobby Berk Home Soho LLC, and Does 1–10 had settled in principle. The opinion does not describe the claims or the settlement’s terms.
Ruling
The court ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring it to the court’s docket if an application to restore was made within 45 days. It stated that an application filed after that period could be denied solely because it was late.
The court also stated that, if the parties wanted it to retain 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 45-day period. Judge Ronnie Abrams directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
Effect
The order ended the case on the court’s docket based on the reported settlement in principle. It did not resolve the underlying claims or state the settlement terms.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.