Ameruso v. City of New York
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:15-cv-03381
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Ameruso v. City of New York, Judge Abrams discontinued the case after being told it had settled, without costs and allowing restoration within 30 days.
Marc Ameruso and the defendants, including the City of New York, are affected by the discontinuance and closure of the case. The parties had 30 days to seek restoration or ask the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement.
What happened
In Ameruso v. City of New York, the court was told that the case had settled. The opinion does not describe the settlement’s terms or the underlying claims.
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 was made within 30 days. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.
Judge Ronnie Abrams also stated that any request for the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement had to place the agreement on the public record and obtain the court’s approval within the same 30-day period.
The detailed version
- Ameruso v. City of New York · No. 1:15-cv-03381
- Ronnie Abrams
- June 10, 2022
Background
The court stated that it had been informed that the case had settled. The opinion does not provide the settlement’s terms or discuss the merits of the claims.
Order
The court ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party. It specified that the action could be restored to the court’s docket if an application to restore it was made within 30 days. Any 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 jurisdiction—the authority to oversee enforcement—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 30-day period. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.
Disposition
This was a procedural order discontinuing the action after the reported settlement. It did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.