Vuppala v. Le Jardin LLC
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:23-cv-00153
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Vuppala v. Le Jardin LLC, Judge Abrams discontinued the settled-in-principle case without costs and without prejudice to timely restoration.
Kiran Vuppala, Le Jardin LLC, and BDS II NY 355 W Broadway LLC; the action was closed subject to a possible timely application to restore it.
What happened
Vuppala v. Le Jardin LLC involved Kiran Vuppala and the defendants Le Jardin LLC and BDS II NY 355 W Broadway LLC. The court was told that the case had been settled in principle.
The court did not decide the parties’ underlying dispute. Instead, it discontinued the case without costs to any party and directed the Clerk of Court to close it.
Judge Ronnie Abrams allowed an application to restore the case if filed within 30 days. The order also said that any settlement terms requiring the court to retain enforcement jurisdiction had to be put on the public record and approved by the court within the stated 45-day period.
The detailed version
- Vuppala v. Le Jardin LLC · No. 1:23-cv-00153
- Ronnie Abrams
- Apr. 24, 2023
Background
The opinion states that the court was informed that the case had been settled in principle. The caption identifies Kiran Vuppala as the plaintiff and Le Jardin LLC, doing business as Le Jardin Hair Salon Soho NYC, and BDS II NY 355 W Broadway LLC as the defendants.
Order
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 an application to restore the action was made within 30 days. The order stated that an application to reopen filed after that period could be denied solely because it was late. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.
The order further stated that, if the parties wanted the court to retain 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 45-day period. The opinion does not state that the settlement had been fully completed or that the court decided the underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.