Francis v. Great Jones Distillery LLC
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:25-cv-08426
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Cire Francis v. Great Jones Distillery, Judge Abrams discontinued the action after it was reported settled in principle, without costs and with 30 days to restore it.
Cire Francis and Great Jones Distillery LLC. The case was closed, subject to a possible application to restore or reopen it within 30 days and the stated requirements for court enforcement of any settlement.
What happened
Cire Francis v. Great Jones Distillery LLC was reported to the court as settled in principle. The opinion does not describe the claims or the settlement terms.
The court discontinued the action without costs to either party and without prejudice to restoring it if an application is made within 30 days. The court also said that any request to reopen filed later may be denied solely because it was late.
Judge Ronnie Abrams ordered that any settlement-enforcement agreement must be made public and approved by the court within the same 30-day period if the parties want the court to retain jurisdiction. The clerk was directed to close the case.
The detailed version
- Francis v. Great Jones Distillery LLC · No. 1:25-cv-08426
- Ronnie Abrams
- Nov. 3, 2025
Background
The court was informed that the case had been settled in principle. The order does not state the claims, identify the settlement terms, or decide the underlying dispute.
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 30 days. The court stated that any application to reopen filed after that period may be denied solely because it was filed late.
If the parties want the court to retain jurisdiction—the 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.
Disposition
The action was discontinued under the stated conditions. The order did not reach the merits of the parties’ dispute.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.