Graciano v. Music123, Inc.
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:20-cv-07620
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Graciano v. Music123, Judge Abrams closed the case after the parties reported settling all issues.
Sandy Graciano, the persons he sought to represent, and Music123, Inc.
What happened
Graciano v. Music123, Inc. was brought by Sandy Graciano on behalf of himself and other similarly situated persons. The parties told the court they had reached a settlement covering all issues.
The court discontinued the action without costs to either party and without prejudice to restoring it within 30 days. The Clerk was directed to close the case.
Judge Ronnie Abrams also stated that any request to reopen filed after 30 days might be denied on that basis, and that any request for the court to retain power to enforce the settlement had to be placed on the public record and approved by the court within 30 days.
The detailed version
- Graciano v. Music123, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-07620
- Ronnie Abrams
- Nov. 25, 2020
Background
Sandy Graciano brought this action on behalf of himself and other similarly situated persons against Music123, Inc. The opinion states that, according to a joint letter from the parties, they had reached a settlement on all issues. It does not describe the settlement's terms.
Court's Action
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. The court stated that any application to reopen filed after that period might 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—meaning authority 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
Judge Ronnie Abrams discontinued the action and directed the Clerk to close the case, subject to the stated 30-day conditions. The order does not state that the court approved the settlement or decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.