Paguada v. The Metal Ware Corporation
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:20-cv-07406
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Paguada v. Metal Ware, Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice and without costs, while allowing a 30-day reopening request.
The plaintiff, the defendant, and the other people the plaintiff sought to represent were affected by the dismissal and case closure; the order does not describe the settlement’s substantive terms.
What happened
Paguada v. The Metal Ware Corporation involved a plaintiff who sued on behalf of himself and others similarly situated. The parties informed the court that 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.
Judge Valerie Caproni allowed the parties 30 days to request reopening by showing good cause. The parties also had 30 days to ask the court to retain authority to enforce their settlement agreement and to submit that agreement.
The detailed version
- Paguada v. The Metal Ware Corporation · No. 1:20-cv-07406
- Valerie Caproni
- Jan. 7, 2021
Background
Josué Paguada brought the case on behalf of himself and others similarly situated against The Metal Ware Corporation. The order does not describe the underlying claims or the terms of the parties’ agreement. On January 6, 2021, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues.
Ruling
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. The clerk was directed to terminate all open motions and close the case.
The order states that, within 30 days, the parties could apply to reopen the case. Such an 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 on that basis alone.
The parties could also ask the court to retain jurisdiction—that is, authority to enforce the settlement agreement—but they had to submit the agreement and request that authority within the same 30-day period. The order does not state that the court retained jurisdiction.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.