Bobe v. City of New York
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:19-cv-09806
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Bobe v. City of New York, Judge Abrams discontinued the settled case without costs, allowing restoration within 30 days.
The parties to the settled action. They were not charged costs, and they had 30 days to seek restoration of the action or to have the court retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement under the stated conditions.
What happened
In Bobe v. City of New York, the court was told that the parties had reached a settlement. The opinion does not describe the settlement or the claims.
The court discontinued the case without costs to any party. It allowed a party to ask to restore the case to the court’s docket within 30 days; later applications may be denied solely because they were late.
Judge Ronnie Abrams also directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the pending motions and close the case. The court said that any request for it to keep authority to enforce the settlement had to place the agreement on the public record and receive the court’s approval within the same 30-day period.
The detailed version
- Bobe v. City of New York · No. 1:19-cv-09806
- Ronnie Abrams
- Feb. 7, 2022
Background
The court stated that it had been informed that the parties reached a settlement. The opinion does not provide the settlement’s terms or explain the underlying claims.
Order
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. It stated that an application to reopen filed after that period could be denied solely on that basis.
The court further ordered that, if the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—that is, continuing 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 terminate the motions pending at docket numbers 40 and 45 and close the case.
Disposition
The action was discontinued under the stated conditions, and the case was closed. The order did not decide the merits of the underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.