Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 20, 2022

Greene v. Buddakan NY LP

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:21-cv-05348
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Greene v. Buddakan NY LP, Judge Abrams discontinued the action after a reported settlement in principle, allowing restoration within 30 days.

Who this affects

Erin Greene and defendants Buddakan NY L.P., Starr Restaurant Organization, LP, and Brandong Wergeles. The action was closed, subject to a possible application to restore it within 30 days.

What happened

In Greene v. Buddakan NY LP, the court was told that the case had been settled in principle. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or settlement terms.

The court discontinued the action without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring it if an application was filed within 30 days. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.

Judge Ronnie Abrams also said any later application to reopen could be denied solely because it was filed after the 30-day period. The court would retain authority to enforce the settlement only if the agreement’s terms were placed on the public record and approved by the court within that period.

The detailed version

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

Case
Greene v. Buddakan NY LP · No. 1:21-cv-05348
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
Sept. 20, 2022

Background

The opinion states that the Court was informed that the case had been settled in principle. The listed plaintiff is Erin Greene. The listed defendants are Buddakan NY L.P., Starr Restaurant Organization, LP, and Brandong Wergeles. The opinion does not state the claims or provide the settlement terms.

Court’s Order

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 an 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—meaning 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 30-day period. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.

Disposition

The court discontinued the action under the stated settlement-related terms. The order did not decide the merits of the underlying dispute.

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.