Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 8, 2020

Cruz v. International Surf Ventures, Inc.

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:20-cv-05962
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Cruz v. International Surf Ventures, Judge Abrams discontinued the action without prejudice, allowing restoration within 30 days.

Who this affects

Shael Cruz, the putative similarly situated group he represented, and International Surf Ventures, Inc.; the case was closed subject to the stated 30-day restoration procedure.

What happened

In Cruz v. International Surf Ventures, Inc., Shael Cruz brought an action on behalf of himself and others similarly situated against International Surf Ventures, Inc. The opinion does not explain the claims or why the action was discontinued.

The court ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring it to the court’s docket if an application was made within 30 days. The court also stated that any request to reopen filed after 30 days could be denied solely because it was late.

Judge Ronnie Abrams directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. The order also said 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 detailed version

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

Case
Cruz v. International Surf Ventures, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-05962
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
Oct. 8, 2020

Background

Shael Cruz filed the action on behalf of himself and others similarly situated against International Surf Ventures, Inc. The opinion is a short order and does not describe the claims, the parties’ positions, or the reason for discontinuing the case.

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 sought to have the court 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 close the case.

Disposition

Judge Ronnie Abrams discontinued the action and directed that the case be closed. The order did not decide the merits of any claim.

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.