Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 31, 2023

Cox v. Players Cafe NY LLC

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:22-cv-09741
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Cox v. Players Cafe NY LLC, Judge Abrams discontinued the settled case without costs and without prejudice to timely restoration.

Who this affects

The order affected Prentice Cox, Players Cafe NY LLC, and 241 Bleecker Realty LLC by discontinuing and closing their settled case, while allowing a timely application to restore it.

What happened

Cox v. Players Cafe NY LLC involved Prentice Cox and defendants Players Cafe NY LLC and 241 Bleecker Realty LLC. The court was told that the case had settled.

The court discontinued the case without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring it if an application was made within 60 days. The court also directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.

Judge Ronnie Abrams stated that any application to reopen filed after 60 days could be denied solely because it was late. The order also explained that the court would retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement only if the agreement’s terms were placed on the public record and approved by the court within the stated 30-day period.

The detailed version

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

Case
Cox v. Players Cafe NY LLC · No. 1:22-cv-09741
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
Mar. 31, 2023

Background

The opinion states that the court was informed that the case had settled. The caption identifies Prentice Cox as the plaintiff and Players Cafe NY LLC and 241 Bleecker Realty LLC as the defendants. The opinion does not describe the claims or the settlement terms.

Court’s Action

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 60 days. It further stated that an application to reopen filed after 60 days could be denied solely because it was filed late.

The court explained that, if the parties wanted it to retain jurisdiction to enforce the 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.

Effect of the Order

This order closed the case based on the reported settlement and did not decide the underlying claims. The opinion does not state the settlement’s terms or resolve the parties’ disputed legal positions.

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.