Hogan v. NYP Holdings, Inc.
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:22-cv-06190
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Hogan v. NYP Holdings, Judge Abrams discontinued the settled case without costs and without prejudice to timely restoration.
Jeremy Hogan and NYP Holdings, Inc.; the case was closed after the court was informed that the parties had settled.
What happened
Hogan v. NYP Holdings, Inc. was reported to the court as settled. The court therefore discontinued the action without costs to either party and without prejudice to restoring it if an application was made within 30 days.
The court directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. Any request to reopen filed after 30 days could be denied solely because it was late.
Judge Ronnie Abrams also stated that the parties could ask the court to retain authority to enforce their settlement, but they had to place the settlement terms on the public record and obtain the court’s approval within the same 30-day period. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Hogan v. NYP Holdings, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-06190
- Ronnie Abrams
- Sept. 27, 2022
Background
The court was informed that the case had been settled. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the settlement’s terms.
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. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.
Any application to reopen the action had to be filed within 30 days of the order, and the court stated that a later application could be denied solely because it was filed after that deadline. If the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—that is, authority to enforce the settlement agreement—they had to place the agreement’s terms on the public record and have the court approve it within the same 30-day period.
Effect of the Order
The order ended the case on the court’s docket based on the reported settlement. It did not decide 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.