Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 25, 2021

Castaneda v. Marriott International, Inc.

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:19-cv-00725
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

Castaneda v. Marriott, Judge Abrams discontinued the action after the parties reported reaching a settlement, without costs and subject to timely restoration.

Who this affects

Iris E. Castaneda, Marriott International, Inc., and the other defendants were affected. The action was discontinued, with a 30-day period for seeking restoration and for placing any settlement-enforcement request before the court.

What happened

Castaneda v. Marriott International, Inc. involved Iris E. Castaneda’s action against Marriott International, Inc. and other defendants. The court was told that the parties had reached a settlement.

The court did not describe the settlement’s terms or decide the underlying claims. It discontinued the action without costs to any party and allowed a request to restore the case to the docket if filed within 30 days.

Judge Ronnie Abrams ordered that any later application to reopen could be denied solely because it was filed after the 30-day period. The court also stated that any request for it to retain authority to enforce the settlement had to place the agreement’s terms on the public record and obtain the court’s approval within that period.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Castaneda v. Marriott International, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-00725
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
May 25, 2021

Background

The opinion states that the parties reported reaching a settlement. It does not provide the settlement’s terms or discuss the underlying claims.

Order

The court ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring it to the court’s docket if an application to restore was made within 30 days. The order states that any application to reopen filed after that period could be denied solely because it was late.

The court further stated that, 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.

Effect

The order ended the action based on the reported settlement but did not resolve the merits of the parties’ underlying dispute. Judge Ronnie Abrams entered the order on May 25, 2021.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.