Young v. Drury University
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:20-cv-05718
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Young v. Drury University, Judge Abrams discontinued the settled case without costs, allowing restoration within 30 days.
Lawrence Young, the people he sought to represent, and Drury University were affected because the settled action was discontinued and the case was closed, subject to the stated 30-day restoration procedure.
What happened
Young v. Drury University was reported to the court as settled. The opinion does not describe the settlement’s terms or the claims’ underlying facts.
The court discontinued the action without costs to either party and without prejudice to restoring it to the court’s docket if an application was made within 30 days. The court also directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
Judge Ronnie Abrams issued the order on September 25, 2020. The order said that any request for the court to retain authority to enforce the settlement had to place the settlement’s terms on the public record and obtain the court’s approval within the same 30-day period.
The detailed version
- Young v. Drury University · No. 1:20-cv-05718
- Ronnie Abrams
- Sept. 25, 2020
Background
The court was informed that the case had been settled. The opinion provides no details about the claims, the settlement terms, or the parties’ agreement.
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 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—meaning authority to enforce the settlement agreement—the settlement’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.
Disposition
Judge Ronnie Abrams discontinued the action under the stated conditions. The order does not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.