Diaz v. Pro-Direct Sport, Inc.
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:19-cv-07894
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Diaz v. Pro-Direct Sport, Judge Abrams discontinued the settled-in-principle case without prejudice to timely restoration.
Edwin Diaz, the putative similarly situated group, and Pro-Direct Sport, Inc.; the case was closed, subject to a possible timely application to restore it.
What happened
Diaz v. Pro-Direct Sport, Inc. was reported to have been settled in principle.
The court discontinued the action without costs to either side. The case could be restored to the court if an application was filed within 30 days, and the court warned that later applications could be denied solely because they were late.
Judge Ronnie Abrams also adjourned the scheduled initial conference and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. The order did not decide the underlying claims or approve settlement terms.
The detailed version
- Diaz v. Pro-Direct Sport, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-07894
- Ronnie Abrams
- Dec. 13, 2019
Background
Edwin Diaz brought this action on behalf of himself and others described as similarly situated against Pro-Direct Sport, Inc. The court was informed that the case had been settled in principle.
Order
The court 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 30 days. The court stated that any application to reopen filed after that period could be denied solely because it was late.
If the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement, the settlement terms had to be placed on the public record and approved by the court within the same 30-day period. The order did not state the terms of any settlement or enter judgment on the underlying claims.
The court also adjourned the initial conference scheduled for December 20, 2019, without setting a new date, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. Judge Ronnie Abrams signed the order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.