Agostini v. Lakeshore Learning Materials, LLC
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:24-cv-05350
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Agostini v. Lakeshore, Judge Abrams discontinued the settled-in-principle action without costs, allowing restoration within 45 days.
Lunique Agostini, the people she sought to represent, and Lakeshore Learning Materials, LLC.
What happened
Lunique Agostini brought Agostini v. Lakeshore Learning Materials, LLC on behalf of herself and others similarly situated. The court was told that the case had been settled in principle.
The court discontinued the action without costs to either party. The case could be restored to the court’s docket if an application was filed within 45 days of the order.
Judge Ronnie Abrams directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. The order also said that any settlement-enforcement request would require the agreement’s terms to be placed on the public record and approved by the court within the same 45-day period.
The detailed version
- Agostini v. Lakeshore Learning Materials, LLC · No. 1:24-cv-05350
- Ronnie Abrams
- Nov. 14, 2024
Background
The opinion states that the court was informed that the case had been settled in principle. The caption identifies Lunique Agostini as the plaintiff, acting on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, and Lakeshore Learning Materials, LLC as the defendant. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the settlement’s terms.
Ruling
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 45 days. It stated that any application to reopen filed after that period could be denied solely because it was late.
The court also stated that, 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 45-day period. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.
Effect
The order ended the case on the court’s docket but did not decide the underlying claims. It did not state the terms of any settlement or indicate that the court had approved a final settlement.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.