Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 14, 2022

Toro v. Storkland/Name Dropper, LLC

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:22-cv-06764
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Toro v. Storkland/Name Dropper, LLC, Judge Abrams discontinued the settled-in-principle case without prejudice to timely restoration.

Who this affects

Andrew Toro, Storkland/Name Dropper, LLC, and the people described in the caption as similarly situated. The action was closed after the reported settlement in principle, subject to a 30-day application to restore it.

What happened

Andrew Toro brought Toro v. Storkland/Name Dropper, LLC on behalf of himself and others described as similarly situated. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims.

The court was informed that the case had been settled in principle. It discontinued the action without costs to either party and allowed a request to restore the case within 30 days.

Judge Ronnie Abrams directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. Any request to reopen filed after 30 days may be denied solely because it was late; the parties could also ask the court to retain authority to enforce a settlement if they placed its terms on the public record and obtained the court’s approval within that period.

The detailed version

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

Case
Toro v. Storkland/Name Dropper, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-06764
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
Dec. 14, 2022

Background

Andrew Toro sued Storkland/Name Dropper, LLC on behalf of himself and others described in the caption as similarly situated. The opinion does not state the claims or provide details about the dispute.

Court’s Action

The court stated that it had been informed that the case had been settled in principle. It 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 warned that an application filed after that period may be denied solely because it was late.

The court also stated that, if the parties wanted it to retain jurisdiction—the court’s 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

Judge Ronnie Abrams discontinued the action and directed that the case be closed, subject to the stated 30-day restoration and settlement-enforcement procedures. The order did not decide the underlying claims.

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.