Robles v. MNG Missouri Holdings LLC
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:24-cv-07521
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Robles v. MNG Missouri Holdings, Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice and without costs, allowing a 30-day reopening application.
Primitivo Robles, MNG Missouri Holdings LLC, and the people Robles sought to represent; the case was closed subject to the order’s 30-day provisions for reopening or requesting retained authority to enforce the settlement.
What happened
Robles v. MNG Missouri Holdings LLC was a case brought by Primitivo Robles for himself and others similarly situated. The parties told the court they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues.
The court canceled scheduled conferences and deadlines, dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, including attorneys’ fees, and directed the clerk to close the case and terminate pending motions. Within 30 days, the parties could ask to reopen the case by showing good cause.
Judge Valerie Caproni issued the order. The parties could also ask the court to retain authority to enforce their settlement by submitting the settlement agreement and a request for that authority within the same 30-day period.
The detailed version
- Robles v. MNG Missouri Holdings LLC · No. 1:24-cv-07521
- Valerie Caproni
- Feb. 10, 2025
Background
Primitivo Robles sued MNG Missouri Holdings LLC, doing business as CBD Kratom, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated. On February 7, 2025, the parties informed the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The opinion does not describe the settlement’s terms.
Order
The court canceled all previously scheduled conferences and other deadlines. It dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, including attorneys’ fees, to either party. “With prejudice” means the dismissal bars refiling the same case. The clerk was directed to terminate all open motions and close the case.
Possible Reopening and Enforcement
Within 30 days of the order, the parties could apply to reopen the case. The application had to show good cause for keeping the case open despite the settlement. The order states that a request filed after 30 days, or without a showing of good cause, could be denied solely on that basis.
If the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—that is, authority to enforce their settlement agreement—they had to submit the agreement and request an order expressly retaining jurisdiction within the same 30-day period.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.