Yoon v. Kubovic
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:20-cv-07885
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Yoon v. Kubovic, Judge Abrams discontinued the settled case without costs, allowing restoration within 30 days.
Jung Ho Yoon, Mark Kubovic, and Buzzuto’s Inc.; the action was discontinued after the court was informed that the parties had settled.
What happened
Yoon v. Kubovic involved Jung Ho Yoon’s action against Mark Kubovic and Buzzuto’s Inc.; the court was told that the case had settled. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or settlement terms.
The court discontinued the action without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring it within 30 days. It also adjourned the scheduled initial conference without setting a new date.
Judge Abrams stated that any request to reopen filed after 30 days could be denied on that basis alone. The parties could ask the court to retain authority to enforce their settlement only if they placed its terms on the public record and obtained the court’s approval within that period.
The detailed version
- Yoon v. Kubovic · No. 1:20-cv-07885
- Ronnie Abrams
- Nov. 17, 2020
Background
The court stated that it had been informed that the case had settled. The opinion identifies the plaintiff as Jung Ho Yoon and the defendants as Mark Kubovic and Buzzuto’s Inc., but it does not describe the claims or the settlement’s terms.
Ruling
The court ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party. It allowed the action to be restored to the court’s docket if an application to restore it was made within 30 days. The order stated that an application filed after that period could be denied solely because it was late.
The court also explained that, if the parties wanted it to retain jurisdiction—that is, continuing authority—to enforce the settlement agreement, they had to place the agreement’s terms on the public record and obtain the court’s approval within the same 30-day period. The initial status conference scheduled for December 11, 2020, was adjourned without a new date.
Effect
This order ended the action based on the reported settlement rather than deciding the underlying claims. The opinion does not state whether the court approved the settlement or retain jurisdiction to enforce it.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.