Gelles v. SintecMedia, NYC, Inc.
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:21-cv-08578
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Gelles v. SintecMedia, Judge Abrams directed the parties to report by May 31 after successful mediation and a planned dismissal.
The parties to Gelles v. SintecMedia, NYC, Inc., including Caitlin Gelles and the defendants named in the order, were required to report on dismissal or settlement finalization.
What happened
Gelles v. SintecMedia, NYC, Inc. concerns a case in which the Mediator’s Office reported that mediation had been successful.
The Yarden defendants had not participated because they had not yet been served. Caitlin Gelles said she intended to dismiss her claims against them after the settlement agreement was finalized.
Judge Ronnie Abrams ordered the parties to file a dismissal notice or agreement, or update the court about the dismissal’s progress, by May 31, 2022. The judge also explained that any settlement terms would need to be made public and approved by the court if the parties wanted the court to enforce the agreement.
The detailed version
- Gelles v. SintecMedia, NYC, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-08578
- Ronnie Abrams
- May 9, 2022
Background
The Mediator’s Office reported to the court that mediation had been successful. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the terms of the proposed settlement.
The Parties’ Position
The Yarden defendants had not participated in mediation because they had not yet been served. Caitlin Gelles stated in an April 21, 2022 letter that she intended to dismiss her claims against those defendants once the settlement agreement was finalized.
Court’s Order
The court ordered the parties, by no later than May 31, 2022, either to file a notice or stipulation of dismissal or to update the court about the progress of finalizing the dismissal. A stipulation is an agreement filed by the parties. The court also stated that, if the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—the authority to oversee enforcement—to enforce the settlement agreement, the agreement’s terms had to be placed on the public record and approved by the court. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.