Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 14, 2024

Dikambi v. City University of New York

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:19-cv-09937
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

Dikambi v. Adams: Judge Abrams discontinued the settled case without costs and without prejudice to timely restoration.

Who this affects

Judith Sandrine Dikambi and Dr. Carlton J. Adams; the case was closed after the reported settlement, subject to the order’s 30-day restoration conditions.

What happened

In Dikambi v. Adams, 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 if an application was made within 30 days. The clerk was directed to close the case.

Judge Ronnie Abrams also stated that any request to retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement had to be placed on the public record and approved by the court within the same 30-day period.

The detailed version

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

Case
Dikambi v. City University of New York · No. 1:19-cv-09937
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
Feb. 14, 2024

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 underlying claims.

Court’s 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 30 days. It warned that an application filed after that period could be denied solely because it was late.

The court also 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 30-day period. The clerk was directed to close the case.

Disposition

Judge Ronnie Abrams discontinued the action under the stated conditions. The order did not decide the underlying claims on their merits.

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.