Keung v. Tai Wan Pork Chop House Inc.
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:19-cv-02181
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Keung v. Tai Wan, Judge Abrams discontinued the case after a reported settlement in principle, allowing restoration within 30 days.
Lin Kwok Keung, Tai Wan Pork Chop House Inc., and 3 Doyers Street LLC; the case was closed after the parties reported a settlement in principle.
What happened
Lin Kwok Keung sued Tai Wan Pork Chop House Inc. and 3 Doyers Street LLC. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the proposed settlement’s terms.
The court said the case had been settled in principle and discontinued the action without costs to any party. The action could be restored if an application was made within 30 days.
Judge Ronnie Abrams directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. She also stated that any request for the court to retain authority to enforce a settlement had to place the agreement’s terms on the public record and receive the court’s approval within 30 days.
The detailed version
- Keung v. Tai Wan Pork Chop House Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-02181
- Ronnie Abrams
- Nov. 18, 2019
Background
The opinion states that it had been reported to the court that the case was settled in principle. It does not identify the underlying claims or provide the terms of the proposed settlement.
Court’s action
The court ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party. The order allowed the parties to ask to restore the action to the court’s docket if they made that application within 30 days. It warned that an application filed later could be denied solely because it was late.
The court also stated that, if the parties wanted it to retain authority 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 Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.
Disposition
Judge Ronnie Abrams discontinued the action without costs to any party and allowed restoration within 30 days under the conditions stated in the order. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.