Brooks & Brooks Investments, LLC v. Mt. Hawley Insurance Company
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:22-cv-09839
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Brooks & Brooks Investments v. Mt. Hawley, Judge Abrams discontinued the settled-in-principle case without costs, allowing restoration within 30 days.
Brooks & Brooks Investments, LLC and Mt. Hawley Insurance Company; the action was discontinued after the court was told it had been settled in principle.
What happened
Brooks & Brooks Investments, LLC v. Mt. Hawley Insurance Company was reported to the court as settled in principle.
The opinion does not describe the parties’ underlying dispute or the settlement’s terms. It says only that the case had been settled in principle.
Judge Ronnie Abrams discontinued the action without costs to either party and without prejudice to restoring it within 30 days. She directed the Clerk of Court to close the case and stated that any settlement-enforcement request would require the agreement’s terms to be placed on the public record and approved by the court within that same 30-day period.
The detailed version
- Brooks & Brooks Investments, LLC v. Mt. Hawley Insurance Company · No. 1:22-cv-09839
- Ronnie Abrams
- Mar. 12, 2024
Background
The court was informed that the case had been settled in principle. The opinion does not provide the underlying claims, the settlement terms, or any finding about the parties’ merits.
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 was made within 30 days. It stated that an application to reopen filed after that period could be denied solely because it was late. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.
If the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce a 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.
Disposition
Judge Ronnie Abrams entered an order discontinuing the action and closing the case. The order did not decide the underlying dispute.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.