Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 21, 2026

Clinton v. Target Corporation

Judge
Jesse Furman
Docket
1:26-cv-04050
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Clinton v. Target Corporation, Judge Furman dismissed the settled case without prejudice to reopening within 60 days if settlement failed.

Who this affects

Sonia Clinton and Target Corporation; the order dismissed the action, made pending motions moot, canceled conferences, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.

What happened

Sonia Clinton sued Target Corporation in the Southern District of New York. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims.

The court said court-ordered mediation occurred and that the parties reached an agreement on all issues. The opinion does not provide the settlement terms or say whether the settlement had been completed.

Judge Jesse M. Furman dismissed and discontinued the case without costs, while allowing either side to seek reopening within 60 days if the settlement was not completed. Any pending motions were declared moot, all conferences were canceled, and the Clerk was directed to close the case.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Clinton v. Target Corporation · No. 1:26-cv-04050
Judge
Jesse Furman
Date
Aug. 21, 2026

Background

The opinion concerns Sonia Clinton’s action against Target Corporation. It does not state the claims or describe the underlying dispute.

Mediation and Settlement

The court reported that, according to the mediator’s final report, the court-ordered mediation had taken place and the parties had reached an agreement on all issues. The opinion does not disclose the agreement’s terms or state whether the settlement had been consummated.

Ruling

Judge Jesse M. Furman ordered that the action be dismissed and discontinued without costs and without prejudice to the right to reopen it within 60 days of the order if the settlement was not consummated. Any application to reopen had to be filed by that deadline, and the court stated that later applications could be denied solely because they were late. The court also stated that requests to extend the reopening deadline were unlikely to be granted.

If the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement, they had to submit the agreement by the reopening deadline for the court to approve it as an order. The order separately required the parties to alert the court within three business days if the settlement required judicial approval, such as for certain class-action, minor-person, or Fair Labor Standards Act settlements. The court declared all pending motions moot, canceled all conferences, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.