Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 24, 2021

Wedel Software USA Inc. v. Leighton Enterprises Inc.

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:20-cv-09823
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Wedel Software v. Leighton Enterprises, Judge Abrams discontinued the settled-in-principle case without costs and without prejudice to timely restoration.

Who this affects

Wedel Software USA Inc. and Leighton Enterprises Inc.; the action was closed, subject to a possible application to restore or reopen it within 30 days.

What happened

Wedel Software USA Inc. v. Leighton Enterprises Inc. was reported to have been settled in principle. The opinion does not describe the settlement’s terms or say that the parties had finalized a settlement agreement.

The court discontinued the action without costs to either party and without prejudice to restoring it to the court’s docket if an application was made within 30 days. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.

Judge Ronnie Abrams also stated that any application to reopen filed after 30 days could be denied solely because it was late. If the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce a settlement, they had to place the agreement’s terms on the public record and obtain the court’s approval within the same 30-day period.

The detailed version

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

Case
Wedel Software USA Inc. v. Leighton Enterprises Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-09823
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
June 24, 2021

Background

The court stated that it had been reported that Wedel Software USA Inc. and Leighton Enterprises Inc. had settled the case in principle. The opinion does not provide the underlying claims, the settlement terms, or any finding that a final settlement agreement had been completed.

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 Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.

The court further ordered that any application to reopen the action be filed within 30 days of the order; an application filed later could be denied solely because it was late. The court stated that, if the parties wanted it to retain jurisdiction—the power to oversee enforcement—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.

Classification

This is a procedural order. The court closed the case based on the reported settlement in principle and did not decide the underlying legal claims.

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.