Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 20, 2020

Paguada v. Uniek, Inc.

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:20-cv-06374
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Paguada v. Uniek, Judge Abrams discontinued the settled-in-principle case without costs, while allowing restoration within 30 days.

Who this affects

Dilenia Paguada and the similarly situated plaintiffs she sought to represent, as well as Uniek, Inc.; the case was closed subject to a possible application to restore it within 30 days.

What happened

Paguada v. Uniek, Inc. was reportedly settled in principle, with the settlement agreement still being finalized.

The court discontinued the case without costs to either side and without prejudice to restoring it if an application was made within 30 days.

Judge Ronnie Abrams directed the Clerk of Court to close the case and explained that any later application to reopen could be denied solely because it was late.

The detailed version

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

Case
Paguada v. Uniek, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-06374
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
Oct. 20, 2020

Background

The court was informed that the case had been settled in principle and that the parties were finalizing a settlement agreement. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or resolve their merits.

Order

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. 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 it to retain jurisdiction to enforce a 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.

Effect

The order ended the case on the court's docket without deciding the underlying dispute. It did not state that the settlement agreement had been finalized or approved.

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.