Bikoff v. Euromarket Designs, Inc.
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:20-cv-00766
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Bikoff v. Euromarket Designs, Judge Abrams discontinued the settled-in-principle case without prejudice to timely restoration.
Sasha Bikoff and Euromarket Designs, Inc.; the court discontinued and closed their action, subject to the stated 30-day restoration and settlement-enforcement conditions.
What happened
Bikoff v. Euromarket Designs, Inc. was reported to have been settled in principle. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the settlement’s terms.
The court discontinued the action without costs to either party and without prejudice to restoring it to the court’s docket within 30 days. It also stated that any request to reopen filed later could be denied solely because it was late.
Judge Ronnie Abrams directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the pending motion and close the case. The court said it would retain jurisdiction to enforce a settlement only if the agreement’s terms were placed on the public record and approved by the court within 30 days.
The detailed version
- Bikoff v. Euromarket Designs, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-00766
- Ronnie Abrams
- May 1, 2020
Background
The opinion states that the court was informed that the case had been settled in principle. It does not identify the underlying claims or provide the settlement’s terms.
Disposition
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 on that basis.
The court further stated that, if the parties wanted the court 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 terminate the motion pending at Dkt. 16 and close the case.
What the Order Did Not Decide
The order does not decide the merits of the parties’ underlying dispute. It also does not state whether the settlement was finalized or describe any obligations under it.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.