Mercer v. Cadence Lodge, LLC
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:20-cv-07602
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Mercer v. Cadence Lodge, Judge Abrams discontinued the settled action without costs and without prejudice to timely restoration.
Stacey Mercer and Cadence Lodge, LLC; the action was closed after the parties reported reaching a settlement, subject to the stated 30-day restoration and settlement-enforcement conditions.
What happened
Mercer v. Cadence Lodge, LLC involved Stacey Mercer and Cadence Lodge, LLC. The parties told the court they had reached a settlement on all issues.
The court discontinued the action without costs to either party and without prejudice to restoring it if an application was made within 30 days. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.
Judge Ronnie Abrams also stated that any request to reopen filed after 30 days could be denied on that basis alone. The court would retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement only if the agreement’s terms were placed on the public record and approved by the court within that period.
The detailed version
- Mercer v. Cadence Lodge, LLC · No. 1:20-cv-07602
- Ronnie Abrams
- Oct. 26, 2020
Background
According to the parties’ joint letter motion dated October 23, 2020, Stacey Mercer and Cadence Lodge, LLC had reached a settlement resolving all issues in the action.
Order
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 to restore the action was made within 30 days. The court 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 also stated that, if the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the 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.
Disposition
The court discontinued and closed the settled action under these conditions. The order did not decide the underlying merits of the parties’ dispute.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.