Norris v. 55 Stone Rest., Inc.
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:20-cv-02237
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Norris v. 55 Stone Rest., Judge Abrams discontinued the settled case without costs, allowing restoration within 30 days.
The plaintiff, Namel Norris, and the defendants, 55 Stone Rest., Inc. doing business as Mad Dog & Beans-Financial District, and F.W.P. Realty Corp.
What happened
Norris v. 55 Stone Rest., Inc. involved a case that the court was told had been settled. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the settlement terms.
The court ordered the action discontinued without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring it if an application was made within 30 days. The court directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
Judge Ronnie Abrams also stated that any settlement-enforcement arrangement would have to be placed on the public record and approved by the court within the same 30-day period. Applications filed later could be denied solely because they were late.
The detailed version
- Norris v. 55 Stone Rest., Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-02237
- Ronnie Abrams
- Aug. 25, 2020
Background
The court stated that it had been informed that the case had settled. The opinion does not identify the underlying claims or provide 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 an application to reopen filed after that period could be denied solely because it was late. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.
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 opinion cited Hendrickson v. United States, 791 F.3d 354, 358 (2d Cir. 2015).
Disposition
Judge Ronnie Abrams discontinued the action under the terms stated in the order. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.