Pena v. Castro
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:22-cv-02412
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Pena v. Castro, Judge Abrams discontinued the action after a settlement was reported, without costs and with a 30-day restoration window.
Neitz Feliz Pena, Anthony Orlando Castro, and JB Hunt, the parties to the action, are affected by the discontinuance, the 30-day restoration deadline, and the requirement for placing settlement terms on the public record if court enforcement is requested.
What happened
Pena v. Castro involved Neitz Feliz Pena as plaintiff and Anthony Orlando Castro and JB Hunt as defendants. The court was told that the case had been settled.
The court discontinued the action without costs to any party. The order allowed a request to restore the case to the court’s docket if filed within 30 days, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
Judge Ronnie Abrams also stated that any request for the court to retain authority to enforce a settlement would require the settlement’s terms to be placed on the public record and approved by the court within the same 30-day period. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Pena v. Castro · No. 1:22-cv-02412
- Ronnie Abrams
- Oct. 13, 2022
Background
The court stated that it had been reported that the case was settled. The opinion does not describe the settlement’s terms or make findings about the underlying claims.
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 any application to reopen filed after that period could be denied solely because it was late.
The court further 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.
Result and classification
This was a procedural disposition based on the reported settlement, not a decision on who was right about the underlying dispute. The court discontinued the action and set conditions for a possible restoration or for retaining authority to enforce the settlement.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.