Matzura v. Corsair Gaming, Inc.
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:23-cv-03431
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Matzura v. Corsair Gaming, Judge Abrams discontinued the settled case without prejudice to timely restoration.
Steven Matzura and Corsair Gaming, Inc.; the case was closed, subject to a timely application to restore it.
What happened
In Matzura v. Corsair Gaming, Inc., the court was told that Steven Matzura and Corsair Gaming, Inc. had settled the case.
The court discontinued the action without costs to either party. It allowed either party to ask to restore the case to the court’s docket within 45 days of the order; later applications could be denied solely because they were late. The order did not describe the settlement’s terms.
Judge Ronnie Abrams directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. The order also said that any request for the court to keep authority to enforce the settlement had to place the settlement terms on the public record and obtain the court’s approval within the specified period.
The detailed version
- Matzura v. Corsair Gaming, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-03431
- Ronnie Abrams
- July 5, 2023
Background The court stated that it had been informed that the case had been settled. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the settlement’s terms.
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 was made within 45 days. It stated that an application to reopen filed after that period could be denied solely because it was late.
The court further stated that, if the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—the authority to enforce a settlement agreement—the settlement’s terms had to be placed on the public record and approved by the court within the same period specified in the order. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.
Disposition Judge Ronnie Abrams discontinued the action under the stated conditions. The order did not decide the merits of the parties’ underlying dispute.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.