Diallo v. First Advantage Background Services Corp.
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:25-cv-02402
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Mamadou Bobo Kann Diallo v. First Advantage Background Services Corp., Judge Abrams discontinued the case after a reported settlement in principle, allowing timely restoration.
Mamadou Bobo Kann Diallo and First Advantage Background Services Corp.; the case was closed, subject to a possible application to restore it within 60 days.
What happened
Mamadou Bobo Kann Diallo v. First Advantage Background Services Corp. was reported to have settled in principle.
The court discontinued the action without costs to either party and without prejudice to restoring it if an application is made within 60 days. The Clerk was directed to close the case.
Judge Ronnie Abrams also stated that any settlement-enforcement request would require the agreement’s terms to be placed on the public record and approved by the court within the stated 30-day period.
The detailed version
- Diallo v. First Advantage Background Services Corp. · No. 1:25-cv-02402
- Ronnie Abrams
- Oct. 8, 2025
Background
The court stated that it had been informed that the case had settled in principle. The opinion does not provide the settlement terms or describe the underlying claims.
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 is made within 60 days. The order states that any application to reopen filed after that period may be denied solely because it was late. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.
The court further stated that, if the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction 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. The opinion cites Hendrickson v. United States, 791 F.3d 354, 358 (2d Cir. 2015).
Result
The court discontinued the action under the stated conditions; it did not decide the underlying claims or disclose the settlement terms.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.