Espinal v. En-R-G Foods, LLC
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:25-cv-02018
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Espinal v. En-R-G Foods, Judge Abrams discontinued the settled-in-principle case without prejudice to timely restoration.
Frangie Espinal and En-R-G Foods, LLC; the action was closed subject to a possible timely application to restore it.
What happened
In Espinal v. En-R-G Foods, LLC, the court was told that the parties had settled the case in principle. The opinion does not describe the settlement’s terms or decide the underlying claims.
The court discontinued the action without costs to either party. The case could be restored if an application was filed within 45 days of the order; the court warned that a later application could be denied solely because it was late.
Judge Ronnie Abrams directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. The parties could ask the court to retain authority to enforce a settlement only if they put the settlement terms on the public record and obtained the court’s approval within the same 45-day period.
The detailed version
- Espinal v. En-R-G Foods, LLC · No. 1:25-cv-02018
- Ronnie Abrams
- June 23, 2025
Background
The court stated that it had been informed that Frangie Espinal’s action against En-R-G Foods, LLC, brought on behalf of herself and other similarly situated persons, had been settled in principle. The opinion does not provide the settlement terms and does not resolve the parties’ underlying claims.
Order
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—meaning authority to enforce the settlement agreement—the settlement’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.
Disposition
The court discontinued the action and directed that the case be closed. It did not decide the merits of the claims or state that the settlement had been finally approved.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.