Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 21, 2022

Khalaf v. Equifax Inc.

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:19-cv-06268
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Khalaf v. Equifax, Judge Abrams discontinued the case after a reported settlement in principle, without costs and subject to timely restoration.

Who this affects

Richard Khalaf, Equifax Inc., and Equifax Information Services, LLC; the action was closed, subject to a possible timely request to restore or reopen it.

What happened

Richard Khalaf sued Equifax Inc. and Equifax Information Services, LLC. The court was told that the case had been settled in principle, but the order does not state the settlement’s terms.

The court discontinued the action without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring it to the court’s docket. A request to restore or reopen the case had to be filed within 30 days of the order.

Judge Ronnie Abrams also said that any request for the court to retain power to enforce a settlement had to place the agreement’s terms on the public record and obtain the court’s approval within that 30-day period. The clerk was directed to close the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Khalaf v. Equifax Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-06268
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
Sept. 21, 2022

Background

The opinion states that Richard Khalaf brought this action against Equifax Inc. and Equifax Information Services, LLC. The court was informed that the case had been settled in principle. The order does not describe the claims, the settlement terms, or whether the parties completed a final settlement.

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 30 days. The court further stated that any application to reopen the action had to be filed within 30 days of the order and that an application filed later could be denied solely because it was late.

If the parties wanted the court 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 30-day period. The clerk was directed to close the case. The order did not decide the underlying claims on their merits.

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.