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, Judge Abrams discontinued the case settled in principle without prejudice to timely restoration.
Mamadou Bobo Kann Diallo and First Advantage Background Services Corp.; the case was closed, subject to the order’s 60-day restoration provision and its conditions concerning court enforcement of any settlement.
What happened
Mamadou Bobo Kann Diallo v. First Advantage Background Services Corp. was reported to have settled in principle.
The court discontinued the case without costs to either side and without prejudice to restoring it to the court’s docket. A request to restore or reopen the case must be filed within 60 days; the court also directed the clerk to close the case.
Judge Ronnie Abrams said that any request for the court to keep authority to enforce a settlement must place the settlement terms on the public record and obtain the court’s approval 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 was settled in principle. The opinion does not describe the claims, the settlement terms, or whether a final settlement agreement had been completed.
Ruling
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. It stated that any application to reopen filed after that period may be denied solely because it was untimely. The court also stated that, if the parties want it to retain authority 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 was directed to close the case.
Effect
The case was closed under the court’s order, but the order preserved the stated possibility of timely restoration. It did not rule on the underlying claims or disclose the settlement’s terms.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.