Otto Archive, LLC v. Dotdash Media, Inc.
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:22-cv-07283
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Otto Archive v. Dotdash, Judge Abrams discontinued the settled case without costs, allowing restoration within 30 days.
Otto Archive, LLC and Dotdash Media, Inc., along with the other named defendants, are affected because the action was discontinued and the case was closed, subject to the order’s 30-day restoration and settlement-enforcement provisions.
What happened
Otto Archive, LLC v. Dotdash Media, Inc. was reported settled, but the opinion does not disclose the settlement’s terms.
The court discontinued the action without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring it within 30 days. The Clerk was directed to close the case.
Judge Ronnie Abrams also stated that any request to reopen filed after 30 days could be denied on that basis, and that any request for the court to enforce the settlement would require the agreement’s terms to be made public and approved by the court within that period.
The detailed version
- Otto Archive, LLC v. Dotdash Media, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-07283
- Ronnie Abrams
- Nov. 22, 2022
Background
The court was informed that the case had been settled. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or disclose the settlement terms.
Ruling
Judge Ronnie Abrams ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring it to the court’s docket if a restoration request was made within 30 days. The court directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
The order stated that any request to reopen the action had to be filed within 30 days of the order and that a later request could be denied solely because it was late. If the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement, they had to place the agreement’s terms on the public record and obtain the court’s approval within the same 30-day period.
Effect
The order ended the case on the court’s docket based on the reported settlement. It did not decide the merits of the underlying dispute.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.