Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled May 6, 2022

Gastelum v. Gilroy Village Shopping Center LLC

Judge
Nathanael Cousins
Docket
5:21-cv-06709
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Gastelum v. PNS Stores, Judge Cousins conditionally dismissed the settled case and all claims with prejudice, while allowing reopening within 60 days.

Who this affects

Fernando Gastelum and PNS Stores, Inc.; the action and all claims asserted in the case were dismissed with prejudice.

What happened

In Fernando Gastelum v. PNS Stores, Inc., the court was notified that the parties had settled the action and that no issue remained for the court to decide.

The court dismissed the action and all claims with prejudice. It directed the clerk to administratively close the case, vacated all scheduled dates, and allowed either party to ask to reopen the case within 60 days.

Judge Nathanael M. Cousins ordered that the court would retain jurisdiction for 60 days. The order did not decide the underlying claims because the case ended after settlement.

The detailed version

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

Case
Gastelum v. Gilroy Village Shopping Center LLC · No. 5:21-cv-06709
Judge
Nathanael Cousins
Date
May 6, 2022

Background

The court stated that it had been notified that the parties settled the action and that no issue remained for the court to determine. The opinion does not describe the claims or the settlement terms.

Ruling

The court ordered that the action and all claims asserted in it were dismissed with prejudice. This means the claims were dismissed in a way that bars their refiling. The clerk was directed to administratively close the case, and all scheduled dates were vacated.

The order was titled an order of conditional dismissal. It allowed any party to move to reopen the case if the motion was filed within 60 days. The court also retained jurisdiction for 60 days. The order did not reach the merits of the underlying claims; it disposed of the case after settlement.

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.