From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Quezada v. Smithey Ironware Co.

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Jul 26, 2022
22-CV-4540 (CM) (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 26, 2022)

Opinion

22-CV-4540 (CM)

07-26-2022

Quezada Plaintiff(s), v. Smithey Ironware Company, LLC, Defendant(s).


ORDER OF DISMISSAL

MCMAHON, J.

The Court having been advised (Docket No. 12) that all claims asserted herein have been settled in principle, it is ORDERED that the above-entitled action be and is hereby dismissed and discontinued without costs, and without prejudice to the right to reopen the action within sixty days of the date of this Order if the settlement is not consummated.

To be clear, any application to reopen must be filed within sixty (60) days of this Order; any application to reopen filed thereafter may be denied solely on that basis. Further, if the parties wish for the Court to retain jurisdiction for the purposes of enforcing any settlement agreement, they must submit the settlement agreement to the Court within the same (60) sixtyday period to be “so ordered” by the Court. Per the Court's Individual Rules and Practices for Civil Cases, unless the Court orders otherwise, the Court will not retain jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement unless it is made part of the public record. '

Any pending motions are moot. All conferences are vacated. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Quezada v. Smithey Ironware Co.

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Jul 26, 2022
22-CV-4540 (CM) (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 26, 2022)
Case details for

Quezada v. Smithey Ironware Co.

Case Details

Full title:Quezada Plaintiff(s), v. Smithey Ironware Company, LLC, Defendant(s).

Court:United States District Court, S.D. New York

Date published: Jul 26, 2022

Citations

22-CV-4540 (CM) (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 26, 2022)