Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 15, 2022

Jackson v. Stern & Stern, P.C.

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:22-cv-05859
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Jackson v. Stern & Stern, P.C., Judge Abrams discontinued the settled-in-principle case without costs, allowing restoration within 60 days.

Who this affects

Mike Jackson and Stern & Stern P.C.; the case was closed after the reported settlement in principle, subject to a possible application to restore it within 60 days.

What happened

In Jackson v. Stern & Stern, P.C., the court was told that the parties had reached a settlement in principle.

The court discontinued the case without costs to either party and without prejudice to restoring it to the court’s docket within 60 days. The court directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.

Judge Ronnie Abrams also stated that any request to reopen filed after 60 days could be denied on that basis. If the parties wanted the court to retain authority to enforce their settlement, they had to place the agreement’s terms on the public record and obtain the court’s approval within the stated period.

The detailed version

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

Case
Jackson v. Stern & Stern, P.C. · No. 1:22-cv-05859
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
Sept. 15, 2022

Background The opinion states that the Court was informed that this case had been settled in principle. The opinion does not describe the underlying 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 60 days. It further stated that an application to reopen filed after 60 days could be denied solely because it was late. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.

The court also stated that, if the parties wanted it to retain jurisdiction—that is, continuing authority—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 stated period. The order does not resolve the merits of the parties’ underlying dispute.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.