Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 20, 2020

Travelers Property Casualty Company of America v. AMC USA, Inc.

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:20-cv-04096
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

Travelers Property Casualty v. AMC USA: Judge Abrams closed the settled case without costs, allowing timely restoration.

Who this affects

The listed plaintiff and defendants. The action was discontinued without costs, with the possibility of restoration if an application was made within 45 days.

What happened

Travelers Property Casualty Company of America v. AMC USA, Inc. involved a dispute between the listed plaintiffs and defendants. The court was told that the case had been settled.

The court discontinued the action without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring it to the court’s docket if an application was made within 45 days. It also adjourned the scheduled initial conference and directed the clerk to close the case.

Judge Ronnie Abrams entered the order on August 20, 2020. The order did not decide the underlying dispute; it stated that the parties could ask the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce a settlement only if the settlement terms were placed on the public record and approved by the court within the same 45-day period.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Travelers Property Casualty Company of America v. AMC USA, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-04096
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
Aug. 20, 2020

Background

The opinion states that the case had been settled. The caption lists Travelers Property Casualty Company of America, on behalf of Brand Agnostic Services, LLC and MHW Ltd. doing business as Cadre Noir, as plaintiff, and AMC USA, Inc. and Heavy Weight Transport, Inc. as defendants.

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 45 days. It stated that an application to reopen filed after that period could be denied solely because it was late.

The court also stated that, if the parties wanted it to retain jurisdiction to enforce their settlement agreement, the agreement’s terms had to be placed on the public record and approved by the court within the same 45-day period. The initial conference scheduled for August 28, 2020, was adjourned without setting a new date, and the clerk was directed to close the case.

Effect

The order ended the case administratively based on the reported settlement. It did not resolve the underlying claims or state the settlement’s terms.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.