Doe v. Farkas
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:25-cv-04738
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Doe v. Farkas, Judge Abrams discontinued the settled case without costs, preserving 30 days to restore it and addressing whether the complaint stays sealed.
John Doe, Andrew Farkas, Angelica Parker, and the public’s access to the unredacted complaint.
What happened
In Doe v. Farkas, the court was told that the parties had settled in principle. It discontinued the case without costs to any party and directed the Clerk of Court to close it.
The order allows either party to ask to restore the case within 30 days; a later request may be denied solely because it was late. The parties may also ask the court to retain authority to enforce their settlement, but they must place the settlement terms on the public record and obtain the court’s approval within that period.
Judge Ronnie Abrams also ruled that the settlement did not resolve whether the unredacted complaint could remain sealed. The parties must file a joint letter by August 19, 2025, stating whether anyone seeks continued sealing and, if so, proposing a schedule for a sealing motion.
The detailed version
- Doe v. Farkas · No. 1:25-cv-04738
- Ronnie Abrams
- Aug. 12, 2025
Background
The court stated that it had been informed that the case had settled in principle. The plaintiff is John Doe, and the defendants are Andrew Farkas and Angelica Parker, formerly known as Angelica Cecora.
Disposition of the Case
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 the action is made within 30 days. The court stated that any application to reopen must be filed within 30 days of the order and that an application filed later may 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 want the court to retain jurisdiction—the authority to enforce—the settlement agreement, the agreement’s terms must be placed on the public record and approved by the court within the same 30-day period.
Sealing Issue
The court explained that settling the case did not resolve whether the unredacted complaint may remain under seal. The parties were ordered to file a joint letter by August 19, 2025, stating whether any party seeks to keep the unredacted complaint sealed. If so, the parties must also submit a proposed schedule for a motion asking the court to maintain the seal.
Result
The action was discontinued without costs, subject to the stated 30-day restoration provision. The court separately required the parties to address the complaint’s sealing status.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.