Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 13, 2024

Franco v. Delta Pi Realty LLC

Judge
Subramanian
Docket
1:23-cv-00798
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
ADA / DisabilityCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Franco v. Delta Pi Realty, Judge Subramanian addressed the parties’ settlement-related request but did not expressly state that he granted administrative closure.

Who this affects

Milagros Franco, Delta Pi Realty LLC, and 23rd Street Jewelry and Hair Corp.; the case concerns alleged public-accommodation inaccessibility and a settlement requiring property modifications and monetary payment.

What happened

Milagros Franco sued Delta Pi Realty LLC and 23rd Street Jewelry and Hair Corp. over alleged wheelchair inaccessibility at a public accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act and related laws. The parties reported reaching a settlement and asked the court to administratively close the case.

Under the settlement, the defendants agreed to modify the property and pay Franco, with both obligations due by January 15, 2025. The parties planned to file a dismissal after those obligations were satisfied, while preserving the possibility of asking the court to reactivate the case if needed.

The court noted that dismissal with prejudice was not feasible at that time and stated that it would execute a consent form allowing a magistrate judge to take jurisdiction if the parties resubmitted it. Judge Arun Subramanian did not expressly state in the provided text that he granted the request for administrative closure.

The detailed version

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

Case
Franco v. Delta Pi Realty LLC · No. 1:23-cv-00798
Judge
Subramanian
Date
Feb. 13, 2024

Background

Milagros Franco brought an action against Delta Pi Realty LLC and 23rd Street Jewelry and Hair Corp. The filing states that the action concerns alleged inaccessibility of a public accommodation to Franco and other wheelchair users, in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and analogous state and local laws.

The parties participated in mediation and reported that they reached a settlement in principle on February 2, 2024. They later signed a confidential settlement agreement. The agreement required the defendants to make various modifications to the public accommodation and pay Franco monetary damages by January 15, 2025.

Requested administrative closure

The parties jointly asked the court to administratively close the proceedings. They described administrative closure as a docket-management device that removes a case from the active docket without terminating the underlying case. They stated that the case could be restored to the active calendar if disputes arose concerning the settlement. They also stated that the defendants would hold an executed stipulation of dismissal in escrow and could file it after the settlement conditions were satisfied, resulting in dismissal of the action.

Court’s action

The court stated that it appreciated the parties’ explanation of why dismissal with prejudice was not feasible at that time, despite the settlement agreement. The court also stated that, if the parties resubmitted their consent form, it would execute the form allowing a magistrate judge to take jurisdiction over the case. The provided text ends with “SO ORDERED,” but it does not expressly state that the joint motion to administratively close proceedings was granted. It also does not state that the action was dismissed.

Classification

This is a procedural order because it concerns administrative case management and settlement-related procedures rather than deciding the merits of the accessibility claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-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.