Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 2, 2023

Envivo, LLC v. Entertainment Studios Media Holdings, Inc.

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:23-cv-03284
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Envivo v. Entertainment Studios, Judge Abrams discontinued the settled-in-principle case without costs and without prejudice to timely restoration.

Who this affects

Envivo, LLC; Entertainment Studios Media Holdings, Inc.; Entertainment Studios Digital Media, LLC; and Does 1–10. The action was closed, subject to a possible application to restore it within 45 days.

What happened

In Envivo, LLC v. Entertainment Studios Media Holdings, Inc., the court was told that the parties had settled the case in principle. The opinion does not describe the underlying dispute.

The court discontinued the action without costs to any party. It allowed either party to seek restoration to the docket within 45 days, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.

Judge Ronnie Abrams also stated that any request for the court to retain authority to enforce a settlement had to place the settlement terms on the public record and receive the court’s approval within that same 45-day period.

The detailed version

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

Case
Envivo, LLC v. Entertainment Studios Media Holdings, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-03284
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
June 2, 2023

Background

The case was brought by Envivo, LLC against Entertainment Studios Media Holdings, Inc., Entertainment Studios Digital Media, LLC, both doing business as thegrio.com, and Does 1–10. The court was informed that the case had been settled in principle. The opinion does not state the dispute’s underlying claims or the settlement’s terms.

Ruling

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 45 days. The court stated that an application to reopen filed after that period might be denied solely because it was late.

The court further stated that, if the parties wanted it to retain authority 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 45-day period. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.

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.