Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 3, 2022

Estevez v. Cloud9 Esports, Inc.

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:21-cv-08883
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Estevez v. Cloud9 Esports, Judge Abrams discontinued the settled case without prejudice to timely restoration.

Who this affects

Arturo Estevez, Cloud9 Esports, Inc., and the people Estevez sought to represent may be affected by the discontinuance and settlement, but the opinion does not state the settlement’s terms.

What happened

In Estevez v. Cloud9 Esports, Arturo Estevez brought the case for himself and others similarly situated against Cloud9 Esports, Inc. The court was told that the parties had settled and were finalizing their agreement.

The court discontinued the action without costs to either party. It allowed the case to be restored if an application was made within 30 days and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.

Judge Ronnie Abrams also stated that any request to reopen the case had to be filed within 30 days. The opinion does not disclose the settlement’s terms or decide the underlying claims.

The detailed version

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

Case
Estevez v. Cloud9 Esports, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-08883
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
Jan. 3, 2022

Background

Arturo Estevez brought this action on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated against Cloud9 Esports, Inc. The court stated that it had been reported that the case was settled and that the parties were finalizing their settlement agreement.

Ruling

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 the action was made within 30 days. It stated that any application to reopen the action had to be filed within 30 days of the order and that a later application could be denied solely because it was late.

The court also stated that, if the parties wanted the court to retain 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. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case. The opinion does not provide the settlement terms and does not decide the underlying claims. Judge Ronnie Abrams signed the order.

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.