Herrera v. Christian Brothers University
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:25-cv-02965
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
Herrera v. Christian Brothers University: Judge Abrams discontinued the settled case without costs, subject to a 45-day restoration deadline.
Edery Herrera and Christian Brothers University. The case was closed after the reported settlement in principle; an application to restore or reopen it must be filed within 45 days, subject to the order’s stated terms.
What happened
Herrera v. Christian Brothers University involved Edery Herrera and Christian Brothers University. The court was informed that the case had been settled in principle.
The opinion does not describe the claims or the settlement’s terms. It states that the action was discontinued without costs to either party.
Judge Abrams ordered that the case could be restored only through an application made within 45 days, closed two pending motions, and directed the Clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- Herrera v. Christian Brothers University · No. 1:25-cv-02965
- Ronnie Abrams
- July 14, 2025
Background The Court was informed that Herrera v. Christian Brothers University had been settled in principle. The opinion does not state the claims involved or the terms of the proposed settlement.
Order The Court ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party and with prejudice to restoring the action to the Court’s docket if an application to restore it is made within 45 days. Any application to reopen the action must be filed within 45 days of the order; an application filed later may be denied solely because it was late.
The Court also stated that, if the parties want the Court to retain jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement, the agreement’s terms must 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 motions pending at ECF Nos. 8 and 12 and close the case.
Disposition Judge Ronnie Abrams discontinued the action without costs and directed that the case be closed. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.