Simmons v. Devachan Hair & Spa, Inc.
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:22-cv-06862
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Simmons v. Devachan Hair & Spa, Inc., Judge Abrams discontinued the settled case without costs and without prejudice to timely restoration.
Michael Simmons and Devachan Hair & Spa, Inc., Deva Concepts LLC, Angela Kuo, Rachel Sack-Hoppenfeld, Robert Schaeffler, and Megan Streeter.
What happened
In Simmons v. Devachan Hair & Spa, Inc., the court was told that the parties had settled the case.
The court discontinued the action without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring it to the court’s docket if an application was made within 30 days. The court also terminated the pending motions and directed the clerk to close the case.
Judge Ronnie Abrams ordered that any request for the court to retain authority to enforce a settlement must place the agreement on the public record and receive the court’s approval within the stated 45-day period.
The detailed version
- Simmons v. Devachan Hair & Spa, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-06862
- Ronnie Abrams
- May 3, 2023
Background
The court stated that it had been informed that the case had settled. The opinion does not describe the settlement’s terms or the claims’ underlying facts.
Order
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 30 days. It stated that an application to reopen filed after that deadline might be denied solely because it was late.
The court also stated that, if the parties wanted it to retain jurisdiction—the 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 clerk was directed to terminate the motions pending at Docket Entries 15 and 24 and close the case.
Disposition
Judge Ronnie Abrams discontinued the action, terminated the two pending motions, and directed that the case be closed. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.