Shulman v. Chaitman LLP
- Victor Marrero
- 1:17-cv-09330
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Shulman v. Becker & Poliakoff, LLP, Judge Marrero conditionally discontinued the case without prejudice while the parties finalized an apparent settlement.
The plaintiffs and defendants were affected. The action was conditionally closed while the parties finalized their agreement; the plaintiffs could seek restoration within 30 days if the settlement was not completed, while the defendants remained subject to the court's jurisdiction if restoration occurred.
What happened
Shulman v. Becker & Poliakoff, LLP involved plaintiffs and defendants who notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle to resolve the action without further litigation.
The court conditionally discontinued the action without prejudice and without costs. The parties had 30 days to submit a dismissal agreement for the court to approve, and the plaintiffs could request restoration if the settlement was not completed.
Judge Victor Marrero ordered the clerk to terminate pending motions and close the case. If the plaintiffs did not request restoration within the 30-day period, the order would become a final discontinuance with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Shulman v. Chaitman LLP · No. 1:17-cv-09330
- Victor Marrero
- Feb. 4, 2020
Background
The defendants' counsel notified the court by letter dated February 3, 2020, that the parties had reached an agreement in principle to resolve the action without further litigation. The letter stated that the parties were circulating settlement documents and requested a 30-day adjournment so the settlement could be finalized.
Order
The court conditionally discontinued the action without prejudice and without costs. Within 30 days of the order, the parties could submit their own stipulation of dismissal for the court to approve. If the settlement was not completed by that deadline, the plaintiffs could apply by letter to restore the action to the court's active calendar.
If the plaintiffs requested restoration, the defendants would remain subject to the court's jurisdiction, and the court would promptly reinstate the action and any pending motions. The parties would then appear to schedule remaining pretrial proceedings or dispositive motions, as appropriate.
The order stated that it would become a final discontinuance of the action with prejudice if the plaintiffs did not request restoration within the 30-day period. The court canceled any scheduled conferences, directed the clerk to terminate pending motions, and ordered the case closed.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.