Cruz v. Jomashop Inc.
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:21-cv-10026
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Cruz v. Jomashop Inc., Judge Abrams discontinued the settled case without prejudice to timely restoration.
Shael Cruz, Jomashop Inc., and the similarly situated people identified in the caption are affected because the action was discontinued, subject to possible restoration within 60 days.
What happened
In Cruz v. Jomashop Inc., the court was informed that the parties had settled the case brought by Shael Cruz against Jomashop Inc.
The court discontinued the action without costs to either side. The case may be restored if an application is made within 60 days of the order; the court may deny a later application solely because it was filed late.
Judge Ronnie Abrams also directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. If the parties want the court to keep authority to enforce their settlement, they must place the settlement terms on the public record and obtain the court’s approval within the same 60-day period.
The detailed version
- Cruz v. Jomashop Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-10026
- Ronnie Abrams
- Jan. 5, 2023
Background
The opinion states that the court was informed that the case had been settled. It does not describe the settlement’s terms or state whether the court approved the settlement.
Order
The court ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring it to the court’s docket if an application to restore the action is made within 60 days. An application to reopen filed after that period may be denied solely because it was filed late.
The court also stated that, if the parties want it to retain jurisdiction—meaning authority—to enforce the settlement agreement, the settlement terms must be placed on the public record and approved by the court within the same 60-day period. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.
Judge and disposition
Judge Ronnie Abrams entered the order discontinuing the action and directing the Clerk to close the case. The order did not resolve the underlying claims on their merits.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.