Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 22, 2022

De la Cruz v. Arbeni Management Company Inc.

Judge
Lewis Liman
Docket
1:22-cv-00979
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Fee PetitionCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In De la Cruz v. Arbeni Management, Judge Liman approved the settlement and fees, then dismissed the action subject to a 30-day restoration deadline.

Who this affects

The plaintiff, defendants, and plaintiff’s counsel were affected: the settlement was approved, attorneys’ fees and costs were approved, and the action was dismissed subject to the stated 30-day restoration procedure.

What happened

In De la Cruz v. Arbeni Management Company Inc. and H.B. Associates LLC, the court held a settlement hearing on July 22, 2022. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or settlement terms.

The court found the settlement fair and reasonable and approved the request by the plaintiff’s lawyer for attorneys’ fees and costs. It dismissed the action without costs and without prejudice to restoring it to the court’s calendar if an application was made within 30 days.

Judge Lewis J. Liman also stated that applications to reopen filed after 30 days could be denied on that basis alone. Any pending motions were dismissed as moot, and all conferences and deadlines were canceled.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
De la Cruz v. Arbeni Management Company Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-00979
Judge
Lewis Liman
Date
July 22, 2022

Background

The court held a hearing on the parties’ settlement on July 22, 2022, and memorialized the hearing by transcript. The opinion does not state the claims asserted or provide the settlement’s terms.

Ruling

The court found that the settlement was fair and reasonable. It approved the request by Plaintiff’s counsel for attorneys’ fees and costs, citing decisions concerning judicial review of settlements and fee requests.

The court ordered that the action be dismissed without costs and without prejudice to restoring the action to the court’s calendar, provided an application to restore it was made within 30 days of the order. The court stated that an application to reopen filed more than 30 days after the order could be denied solely on that basis. Any pending motions were dismissed as moot, and all conferences and deadlines were canceled.

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.