Opinion
23-788
05-21-2024
AMERICAN EMPIRE SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UN LEE, YUN LEE-ITO, Defendants-Counter-Claimants- Appellees, EDGAR VENTURA, IEJK REALTY LLC, Defendants-Appellees.
FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: MAUREEN E. O'CONNOR (John D. McKenna, on the brief), L'Abbate, Balkan, Colavita & Contini, L.L.P., Melville, New York. FOR DEFENDANTS-COUNTER- MAGDALENE P. SKOUNTZOS, Brody Law Group CLAIMANTS-APPELLEES: PLLC, New York, NY. FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: VINCENT CHIRICO, Chirico Law PLLC, Brooklyn, NY.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT'S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION "SUMMARY ORDER"). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 21st day of May, two thousand twenty-four.
Appeal from a judgment and order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Block, J.).
FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: MAUREEN E. O'CONNOR (John D. McKenna, on the brief), L'Abbate, Balkan, Colavita & Contini, L.L.P., Melville, New York.
FOR DEFENDANTS-COUNTER- MAGDALENE P. SKOUNTZOS, Brody Law Group CLAIMANTS-APPELLEES: PLLC, New York, NY.
FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: VINCENT CHIRICO, Chirico Law PLLC, Brooklyn, NY.
PRESENT: GERARD E. LYNCH, MYRNA PEREZ, MARIA ARAUJO KAHN, Circuit Judges.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the case is REMANDED.
On May 15, 2024, Appellant submitted to the Court a letter on behalf of all parties to this appeal, advising the Court that they have reached an agreement as to the amount of attorneys' fees which are subject to the district court's judgment on the Lee Defendants' Counterclaim. In light of Appellant's submission, we REMAND the case pursuant to United States v. Jacobson, 15 F.3d 19, 22 (2d Cir. 1994), to allow the district court to issue an amended final judgment that includes the agreed-upon amount of attorneys' fees due and to formally dispose of the claims against the non-appearing defendants. Upon the district court's entry of an amended judgment, either party may restore the matter to the active docket of this Court by letter, without filing a new notice of appeal.