Bank of New York Mellon Corporation v. Keaney
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:21-cv-08144
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Bank of New York Mellon v. Keaney, Judge Abrams discontinued the settled-in-principle case without prejudice to timely restoration.
Bank of New York Mellon Corporation and Timothy Keaney; the action was discontinued, the scheduled conference was adjourned, and the Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.
What happened
Bank of New York Mellon Corporation sued Timothy Keaney, and the court was told that the case had been settled in principle.
The court discontinued the action without costs to either party and without prejudice to restoring it if an application was made within 45 days. It also adjourned the scheduled conference and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
Judge Abrams stated that any request for the court to retain authority to enforce the settlement had to place the agreement’s terms on the public record and receive the court’s approval within the same 45-day period.
The detailed version
- Bank of New York Mellon Corporation v. Keaney · No. 1:21-cv-08144
- Ronnie Abrams
- Jan. 6, 2022
Background
The opinion states that Bank of New York Mellon Corporation was the plaintiff and Timothy Keaney was the defendant. The court was informed that the case had been settled in principle. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or state the terms of the reported settlement.
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 45 days. It stated that an application to reopen filed after that period could be denied solely because it was late.
The court further stated that, if the parties wanted it 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 45-day period. The conference scheduled for January 19, 2022, was adjourned, and the Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.
Effect
This order ended the action based on the reported settlement in principle but provided a 45-day procedure for seeking restoration. It did not decide the underlying claims or state whether the settlement had been finalized.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.