Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 12, 2019

Mercer v. The West Yellowstone Evergreen Motel, Inc.

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:19-cv-08328
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Mercer v. The West Yellowstone Evergreen Motel, Judge Abrams discontinued the settled-in-principle case without costs, allowing restoration within 45 days.

Who this affects

Stacey Mercer and The West Yellowstone Evergreen Motel, Inc.; the case was closed subject to the order’s restoration and settlement-enforcement provisions.

What happened

Mercer v. The West Yellowstone Evergreen Motel, Inc. was reported to have settled in principle.

The court discontinued the case without costs to either party and without prejudice to restoring it if an application was made within 45 days. The clerk was directed to close the case.

Judge Ronnie Abrams also stated that any settlement-enforcement request had to be placed on the public record and approved by the court within the stated period.

The detailed version

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

Case
Mercer v. The West Yellowstone Evergreen Motel, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-08328
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
Nov. 12, 2019

Background

The court was informed that Stacey Mercer’s case against The West Yellowstone Evergreen Motel, Inc. had settled in principle. The order does not describe the claims or the settlement’s terms.

Ruling

Judge Ronnie Abrams 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 was made within 45 days. The order states that a later application may be denied solely because it was filed after that deadline. The clerk was directed to close the case.

The order also states 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 order does not explain how that 30-day reference relates to the separate 45-day restoration deadline.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.