Obah v. Medrite Urgent Care
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:24-cv-07204
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Obah v. Medrite Urgent Care, Judge Abrams discontinued the settled-in-principle case without prejudice to timely restoration.
Patrick Obah and Medrite Urgent Care, whose action was discontinued and whose ability to restore or reopen it was subject to the Court’s 30-day deadline.
What happened
In Obah v. Medrite Urgent Care, the Court was told that the parties had settled the case in principle.
The Court discontinued the action without costs to either party and without prejudice to restoring it if an application was made within 30 days. The Clerk was directed to close the case.
Judge Ronnie Abrams also stated that any request to reopen filed after 30 days could be denied on that basis alone. If the parties wanted the Court to keep authority to enforce their settlement, they had to place the agreement’s terms on the public record and obtain the Court’s approval within the same 30-day period.
The detailed version
- Obah v. Medrite Urgent Care · No. 1:24-cv-07204
- Ronnie Abrams
- June 25, 2025
Background
The Court stated that the parties had reported a settlement in principle. The opinion does not describe the settlement’s terms or state that a final settlement agreement had been entered.
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 an application to restore it was made within 30 days. It stated that an application to reopen filed after that period could 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 the Court to retain jurisdiction—legal 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 under the stated conditions. The opinion did not decide the underlying claims between the parties.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.