Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 12, 2024

Almonte v. JAM Maintenance LLC

Judge
Barbara Moses
Docket
1:22-cv-01820
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Almonte v. JAM Maintenance, Judge Moses approved the settlement and dismissed the action with prejudice.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs and all defendants, including JAM Maintenance LLC and Diego Ramirez, are affected by the approved settlement and dismissal with prejudice. The court retains limited jurisdiction to enforce the Settlement Agreement.

What happened

In Almonte v. JAM Maintenance LLC, the court reviewed the parties’ fully signed settlement agreement and found its financial and non-financial terms fair and reasonable.

The court approved the settlement and dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims against all defendants, including JAM Maintenance LLC and Diego Ramirez, with prejudice. The clerk was directed to close the case.

Judge Barbara Moses retained jurisdiction only to enforce the settlement agreement and otherwise ended the action.

The detailed version

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

Case
Almonte v. JAM Maintenance LLC · No. 1:22-cv-01820
Judge
Barbara Moses
Date
Dec. 12, 2024

Background

The court reviewed a joint letter, a declaration by Gianfranco J. Cuadra, and the parties’ fully executed Settlement Agreement. The agreement resolved the plaintiffs’ claims against the defendants.

Ruling

Applying the requirement that certain employment settlements be fair and reasonable, the court found that the settlement’s financial and non-financial terms met that standard and APPROVED the proposed Settlement Agreement.

The plaintiffs agreed to dismiss their claims against all defendants, including JAM Maintenance LLC and Diego Ramirez, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), with prejudice. The court therefore DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE the action. At the parties’ request, the court retained jurisdiction for the limited purpose of enforcing the Settlement Agreement and directed the clerk to close the case.

Effect

The dismissal with prejudice ends the action and bars refiling the dismissed claims. The court’s continuing authority is limited to enforcing the settlement agreement.

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.