Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund v. Rici Corp.
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:22-cv-10133
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
Mason Tenders v. Rici was settled and discontinued without costs, Judge Abrams allowing restoration within 30 days.
The plaintiffs and defendants in Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund v. Rici Corp.; the action was closed after the reported settlement, subject to the stated 30-day restoration procedure.
What happened
In Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund v. Rici Corp., the court was told that the parties had settled the case. The opinion does not describe the dispute or settlement terms.
The court ordered the action discontinued 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 stated that any request to keep authority to enforce the settlement would require placing the settlement terms on the public record and obtaining the court’s approval within that period.
Judge Ronnie Abrams ordered the Clerk of Court to close the case. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund v. Rici Corp. · No. 1:22-cv-10133
- Ronnie Abrams
- Jan. 2, 2024
Background
The court stated that it had been informed that the case had settled. The opinion does not provide the underlying claims or the terms of the settlement.
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 warned that an application 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 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 30-day period. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.
Effect
This order ended the action based on the reported settlement and did not decide the underlying legal claims. The opinion does not state whether the parties requested, or whether the court retained, authority to enforce the settlement.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.