Hine v. Iowa Stubborn Limited Liability Company
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:22-cv-01636
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Hine v. Iowa Stubborn, Judge Abrams closed the settled case without costs, allowing restoration within 30 days.
The plaintiffs and defendants in Hine v. Iowa Stubborn Limited Liability Company were affected: the case was discontinued and closed after the reported settlement, with a 30-day period to seek restoration or court approval to retain jurisdiction over settlement enforcement.
What happened
Hine v. Iowa Stubborn Limited Liability Company involved claims by Clay Hine, David Calland, Kirk Young, and Tim Reynolds against the named defendants. The opinion says the Court was informed that the case had been settled.
The court discontinued the action without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring it if an application was made within 30 days. It also terminated the pending motion at Docket 6 and directed the Clerk to close the case. Any settlement-enforcement request had to be placed on the public record and approved by the court within that same period.
Judge Ronnie Abrams issued the order on September 9, 2022. The order did not decide the underlying claims or disclose the settlement’s terms.
The detailed version
- Hine v. Iowa Stubborn Limited Liability Company · No. 1:22-cv-01636
- Ronnie Abrams
- Sept. 9, 2022
Background
The plaintiffs were Clay Hine, David Calland, Kirk Young, and Tim Reynolds. The defendants were Iowa Stubborn Limited Liability Company, Alchemy Production Group Limited Liability Company, Marshall B. Purdy, Carl Pasbjerg, and Kate Horton. The opinion states that the Court was informed that the case had been settled, but it does not describe the claims, the settlement terms, or the nature of the motion pending at Docket 6.
Ruling
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 any application to reopen filed after that period could be denied solely because it was late. The court also stated that, if the parties wanted it to retain jurisdiction 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 terminate the motion pending at Docket 6 and close the case. The order did not reach the merits of the parties’ underlying dispute.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.