Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 19, 2019

Murphy v. Gilden Associates, LLC

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:19-cv-07734
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Murphy v. Gilden Associates, LLC, Judge Abrams discontinued the settled case without prejudice to timely restoration.

Who this affects

James Murphy, Gilden Associates, LLC, and the persons included in Murphy’s stated group action were affected by the case’s closure and the 30-day deadline for seeking restoration. The order also imposed conditions on any request for the court to retain authority to enforce the settlement.

What happened

James Murphy brought this case against Gilden Associates, LLC, doing business as 1000 Islands Campground, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated.

The court was told that the case had been settled. It discontinued the action without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring it if an application was made within 30 days.

Judge Ronnie Abrams directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. The court also said that any settlement-enforcement jurisdiction required the agreement’s terms to be placed on the public record and approved by the court within the same 30-day period.

The detailed version

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

Case
Murphy v. Gilden Associates, LLC · No. 1:19-cv-07734
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
Nov. 19, 2019

Background

James Murphy sued Gilden Associates, LLC, doing business as 1000 Islands Campground, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated. The opinion states that the parties reported the case had been settled, but it does not describe the settlement’s terms or the claims’ merits.

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 was made within 30 days. The court stated that an application to reopen filed after that period could be denied solely because it was late.

The court further stated that, if the parties wanted the court to retain authority to enforce the 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.

Effect

The order closed the case based on the reported settlement. It did not decide the underlying claims or state the settlement’s terms. The order preserved a procedure for timely restoration and set conditions for retaining court authority to enforce the settlement.

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.