Mulhall v. Sterling National Bank & Trust Co. of New York
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:20-cv-08339
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Mulhall v. Sterling, Judge Abrams discontinued the action without costs and without prejudice after the parties reported an agreement in principle to settle.
The parties to the action, Thomas J. Mulhall and Sterling National Bank & Trust Co. of New York.
What happened
Mulhall v. Sterling National Bank & Trust Co. of New York concerned an action in which the parties reported that they had reached an agreement in principle to settle.
The court discontinued the action without costs to either party and without prejudice to restoring it if a request was made 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 could be denied on that basis, and that any request for the court to retain authority to enforce a settlement required the settlement terms to be placed on the public record and approved by the court within 30 days.
The detailed version
- Mulhall v. Sterling National Bank & Trust Co. of New York · No. 1:20-cv-08339
- Ronnie Abrams
- Mar. 10, 2021
Background
The court stated that it had been informed that the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the case. The opinion does not provide the settlement terms or describe the underlying claims.
Ruling
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 directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
The order further stated that any application to reopen filed after the 30-day period could be denied solely because it was late. If the parties wanted the court to retain authority to enforce a 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.
Effect
This order ended the case on the court’s docket based on the reported settlement agreement in principle. It did not decide the underlying claims or state the terms of any settlement.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.