Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 18, 2024

Competello v. Caputo Jewelers, Inc.

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:24-cv-04907
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Competello v. Caputo Jewelers, Judge Abrams discontinued the settled case without prejudice to timely restoration.

Who this affects

Susan Competello, Caputo Jewelers, Inc., and the people included in the proposed group represented by the plaintiff were affected by the case’s discontinuance and closure.

What happened

Competello v. Caputo Jewelers, Inc. was a case brought by Susan Competello on behalf of herself and others similarly situated. The court was informed that the case had been settled.

The court discontinued the action without costs to any party. The action could be restored if an application was made within 30 days, and the court warned that later applications could be denied solely because they were late.

Judge Ronnie Abrams directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. The court also said that any request for it to retain authority to enforce the settlement had to place the settlement terms on the public record and obtain the court’s approval within the same 30-day period.

The detailed version

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

Case
Competello v. Caputo Jewelers, Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-04907
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
Nov. 18, 2024

Background

The opinion states that the court was informed that the case had been settled. The caption identifies Susan Competello as the plaintiff, appearing on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, and Caputo Jewelers, Inc. as the defendant. The opinion does not describe the claims or the settlement’s terms.

Court’s Action

The court ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring the action to the court’s docket if an application to restore it 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 court further stated that, if the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—the authority to oversee enforcement—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 of Court was directed to close the case.

Disposition

Judge Ronnie Abrams discontinued the action and directed that the case be closed. The opinion does not state that the court approved the settlement itself or disclose its terms.

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.