Columbus v. Scott
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:19-cv-06722
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Columbus v. Scott, Judge Abrams discontinued the settled-in-principle case without costs and without prejudice to timely restoration.
Joseph Columbus, Carolyn Daley Scott, HK Recovery Group, Inc., Pinpoint Technologies, LLC, and Ronald Hughes. The action was closed, subject to a possible application to restore or reopen it within 30 days.
What happened
Columbus v. Scott was discontinued after the court was told that the parties had settled in principle. The opinion does not decide the underlying claims.
The court said the case could be restored if an application was made within 30 days. It also said any settlement-enforcement request would require placing the agreement’s terms on the public record and obtaining the court’s approval within that period.
Judge Ronnie Abrams ordered the action discontinued without costs to any party, directed the Clerk of Court to close the case, and stated that later reopening applications could be denied solely because they were filed after 30 days.
The detailed version
- Columbus v. Scott · No. 1:19-cv-06722
- Ronnie Abrams
- Jan. 28, 2020
Background
The court was informed that the case had been settled in principle. The opinion does not describe the parties’ underlying claims or the settlement’s terms.
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 30 days. It stated that any application to reopen filed after that period could be denied solely because it was late.
The court also explained that if the parties wanted it to retain jurisdiction 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.
Classification
This is a procedural order. The court closed the case based on the reported settlement in principle and did not decide the merits of the underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.