Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 4, 2019

Vuppala v. Macondo Belts

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:19-cv-05390
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Vuppala v. Macondo Belts, Judge Abrams discontinued the settled case without costs or prejudice, allowing restoration within 30 days.

Who this affects

Kiran Vuppala, Macondo Belts, and 535 Hudson Realty LLC; the case was closed after the parties reported reaching a settlement.

What happened

Vuppala v. Macondo Belts involved Kiran Vuppala and defendants Macondo Belts and 535 Hudson Realty LLC. The court was informed that the parties had reached a settlement.

The court discontinued the action without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring it to the court’s docket within 30 days. The court also directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.

Judge Ronnie Abrams stated that any application to reopen filed after the 30-day period could be denied solely because it was late. If the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement, they had to place the settlement terms on the public record and obtain the court’s approval within that period.

The detailed version

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

Case
Vuppala v. Macondo Belts · No. 1:19-cv-05390
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
Dec. 4, 2019

Background

Kiran Vuppala sued Macondo Belts, described in the caption as a foreign corporation doing business as Macondo Belts-NY, and 535 Hudson Realty LLC, described as a New York limited liability company. The opinion states that the parties reached a settlement.

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 any application to reopen filed after that period could be denied solely because it was late.

The court also stated that, if the parties wanted it to 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. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case. The opinion does not state the settlement’s terms.

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.