Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 5, 2021

Paguada v. Team International Group of America, Inc.

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:20-cv-06962
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Paguada v. Team International, Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice and without costs, while allowing a 30-day reopening application.

Who this affects

The parties, Josué Paguada and Team International Group of America, Inc., were affected by the dismissal. The order does not disclose the settlement’s terms or how it affects other people covered by the proposed group action.

What happened

Paguada v. Team International Group of America, Inc. involved an agreement in principle that the parties said resolved all issues. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the settlement’s terms.

The court cancelled all scheduled conferences and deadlines. It dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, including attorneys’ fees, to either party, directed the Clerk to close the case, and terminated all open motions.

Judge Valerie Caproni also allowed the parties to apply within 30 days to reopen the case if they showed good cause. During that period, they could ask the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce their settlement by submitting the agreement and a request for such an order.

The detailed version

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

Case
Paguada v. Team International Group of America, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-06962
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
Jan. 5, 2021

Background

Josué Paguada brought this case against Team International Group of America, Inc., on behalf of himself and others similarly situated. The parties notified the court on December 30, 2020, that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The order does not provide the underlying claims or the settlement terms.

Order

The court cancelled all previously scheduled conferences and other deadlines. It dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, including attorneys’ fees, to either party. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate all open motions and close the case.

The order allowed the parties to apply to reopen the case within 30 days. Any application had to show good cause for keeping the case open despite the settlement. A request filed after 30 days or without a showing of good cause could be denied solely on that basis.

The parties could also ask the court to retain jurisdiction—the court’s authority to enforce the settlement agreement—if they submitted the agreement and a request for an order expressly retaining jurisdiction within the same 30-day period. The agreement had to be submitted according to Rule 6.A of the court’s Individual Practices.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.