Treshnell v. Ten Lifestyle Management USA, Inc.
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:20-cv-08790
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Treshnell v. Ten Lifestyle, Judge Abrams discontinued the settled-in-principle case without costs and allowed restoration within 45 days.
Amber Treshnell, Ten Lifestyle Management USA, Inc., and Ten Lifestyle Group, PLC; the action was closed, subject to the stated deadline for seeking restoration.
What happened
In Treshnell v. Ten Lifestyle Management USA, Inc., and Ten Lifestyle Group, PLC, the court was told that the case had been settled in principle.
The court discontinued the action without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring it within 45 days. It directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
Judge Ronnie Abrams also stated that any settlement-enforcement request would require the agreement’s terms to be placed on the public record and approved by the court within the period specified in the order.
The detailed version
- Treshnell v. Ten Lifestyle Management USA, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-08790
- Ronnie Abrams
- Apr. 9, 2021
Background
The opinion states that the Court was told the case had been settled in principle. It does not describe the underlying claims or the settlement’s terms.
Order
The Court ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring the action to the docket if an application was made within 45 days. It 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 order further stated that, if the parties wanted the Court to retain authority to enforce a 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 opinion uses both a 45-day period for restoration or reopening and a 30-day period for placing settlement terms on the public record.
Disposition
Judge Ronnie Abrams discontinued the action under the stated conditions. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.