Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 3, 2019

Conner v. Nobull, LLC

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:19-cv-09104
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Conner v. Nobull, LLC, Judge Abrams discontinued the settled class action without costs and without prejudice to timely restoration.

Who this affects

Mary Conner, the represented class of similarly situated persons, and Nobull, LLC.

What happened

In Conner v. Nobull, LLC, Mary Conner brought the case individually and as a representative of a class of similarly situated people against Nobull, LLC. The court was told that the parties had reached a settlement.

The court discontinued the action without costs to either party and without prejudice to restoring it to the court’s docket if an application was made within 45 days. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.

Judge Ronnie Abrams also stated that any request to reopen filed after 45 days could be denied on that basis alone. If the parties wanted the court to keep jurisdiction to enforce the settlement, the settlement terms had to be placed on the public record and approved by the court within the period stated in the order.

The detailed version

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

Case
Conner v. Nobull, LLC · No. 1:19-cv-09104
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
Dec. 3, 2019

Background

Mary Conner sued Nobull, LLC individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons. The opinion states that the court was informed that the parties had reached a settlement. It does not provide the settlement’s terms or describe the underlying claims.

Order

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 45 days. The court stated that an application to reopen filed after that deadline could be denied solely because it was late. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.

The order further stated that, if the parties sought to have the court retain jurisdiction 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 identified in the order. The opinion does not state whether the court retained jurisdiction or approve any settlement terms.

Disposition

The court discontinued the action and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. The order did not decide the merits of the underlying claims.

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.