Castrillon v. Ben-Amun Co. Inc.
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:19-cv-09228
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Castrillon v. Ben-Amun Co. Inc., Judge Abrams discontinued the settled-in-principle case without costs, allowing restoration within 30 days.
Daniel Gomez Castrillon and Ben-Amun Co., Inc.; the action was discontinued after the court was informed that it had been settled in principle.
What happened
In Castrillon v. Ben-Amun Co. Inc., the court was told that the case had been settled in principle.
The court discontinued the action without costs to either party. It allowed a party to ask to restore the case to the court’s docket within 30 days; later applications could be denied solely because they were late. The court also explained that any request for it to keep authority to enforce a settlement agreement had to be placed on the public record and approved by the court within those 30 days.
Judge Ronnie Abrams ordered the Clerk of Court to close the case. The opinion does not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Castrillon v. Ben-Amun Co. Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-09228
- Ronnie Abrams
- Mar. 11, 2020
Background
The court stated that it had been informed that the case had been settled in principle. The opinion does not describe the claims, the settlement’s terms, or whether a final settlement agreement had been completed.
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 an application to reopen filed after that period could be denied solely because it was late.
The court further stated that, if the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—that is, authority—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.
Effect of the Order
The order ended the case without deciding the underlying claims. It did not award costs to either party and did not state the terms of any settlement.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.