Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 2, 2022

Two Hundred Twenty Nine, LLC v. United States Liability Insurance Company

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:21-cv-05895
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Two Hundred Twenty Nine v. United States Liability Insurance Co., Judge Abrams closed the settled case without costs, allowing restoration within 30 days.

Who this affects

Two Hundred Twenty Nine, LLC and United States Liability Insurance Co.; the case was closed after the reported settlement, subject to the stated 30-day restoration procedure.

What happened

Two Hundred Twenty Nine, LLC v. United States Liability Insurance Co. was reported to the court as settled. The opinion does not describe the claims or settlement terms.

The court discontinued the case without costs to either party and without prejudice to restoring it if an application was made within 30 days. It also directed the Clerk of Court to close the case and adjourned scheduled conferences.

Judge Ronnie Abrams allowed the parties to ask the court to retain authority to enforce the settlement only if they placed the settlement terms on the public record and obtained 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
Two Hundred Twenty Nine, LLC v. United States Liability Insurance Company · No. 1:21-cv-05895
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
Mar. 2, 2022

Background

The court was informed that Two Hundred Twenty Nine, LLC’s case against United States Liability Insurance Co. had been settled. The opinion does not state the nature of the claims or the settlement’s terms.

Court’s action

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 stated that an application to reopen 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 the settlement agreement, the settlement terms had to be placed on the public record and approved by the court within the same 30-day period. Previously scheduled conferences were adjourned, and the Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.

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.