Capital Art, Inc. v. Sit Down New York, Inc.
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:19-cv-04454
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Capital Art v. Sit Down New York, Judge Abrams discontinued the case after a reported settlement, allowing restoration requests within 30 days.
Capital Art, Inc. and Sit Down New York, Inc.; the case was closed subject to the order's 30-day restoration and settlement-enforcement conditions.
What happened
Capital Art, Inc. v. Sit Down New York, Inc. was reported settled in principle, while the parties were finalizing a settlement agreement.
The court discontinued the case without costs to either party and without prejudice to restoring it if an application was made within 30 days. The court also said any request to retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement had to be placed on the public record and approved by the court within that period.
Judge Ronnie Abrams ordered the Clerk of Court to close the case. The order did not decide the underlying dispute.
The detailed version
- Capital Art, Inc. v. Sit Down New York, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-04454
- Ronnie Abrams
- Jan. 28, 2021
Background
The court was informed that the case had been settled in principle and that the parties were finalizing a settlement agreement. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the settlement terms.
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. Any application to reopen filed after that period could be denied solely because it was late.
If the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—the 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. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.
Disposition
Judge Ronnie Abrams discontinued the action under the stated settlement-related terms. The order did not reach the merits of the parties' underlying dispute.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.