Mercer v. Pooja & Devang, Inc.
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:21-cv-02875
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Mercer v. Pooja & Devang, Judge Abrams discontinued the settled-in-principle case without costs, allowing restoration within 30 days.
Stacey Mercer, Pooja & Devang, Inc., and Hospitality International, Inc.; the action was discontinued subject to the stated 30-day restoration period.
What happened
Mercer v. Pooja & Devang, Inc. involved Stacey Mercer’s case against Pooja & Devang, Inc. and Hospitality International, Inc. 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 to the court’s docket if an application was made within 30 days. It also said that any request for the court to retain authority to enforce a settlement had to be placed on the public record and approved by the court within that period.
Judge Ronnie Abrams also adjourned the scheduled July 9, 2021 conference indefinitely. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Mercer v. Pooja & Devang, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-02875
- Ronnie Abrams
- June 4, 2021
Background
The opinion states that Stacey Mercer sued Pooja & Devang, Inc. and Hospitality International, Inc. The court was informed that the case had been settled in principle. The opinion does not describe the claims or the settlement’s terms.
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. The court warned that an application filed after that period could be denied solely because it was late.
The court also stated that, if the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—meaning 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 conference scheduled for July 9, 2021, was adjourned indefinitely. The order did not reach the merits of the underlying dispute.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.