Paguada v. W. Atlee Burpee Company
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:20-cv-08477
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Paguada v. Burpee, Judge Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice after the parties reported an agreement in principle, without awarding costs or fees.
Josué Paguada, the persons he represented, and W. Atlee Burpee Company are affected because the case was dismissed with prejudice, without costs or attorneys’ fees to either party, and closed, subject to the order’s 30-day procedures for reopening or retaining jurisdiction to enforce the settlement.
What happened
In Paguada v. W. Atlee Burpee Company, the parties told the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The case involved Josué Paguada on behalf of himself and others similarly situated.
The court canceled all scheduled conferences and deadlines, dismissed the case with prejudice, ordered that neither side pay costs or attorneys’ fees, terminated all open motions, and closed the case. The parties could apply within 30 days to reopen the case if they showed good cause.
Judge Valerie Caproni also said the parties could ask the court to retain authority to enforce their settlement by submitting the agreement and a request within that same 30-day period.
The detailed version
- Paguada v. W. Atlee Burpee Company · No. 1:20-cv-08477
- Valerie Caproni
- Feb. 12, 2021
Background
Josué Paguada brought the case on behalf of himself and others similarly situated against W. Atlee Burpee Company. The opinion states that, on February 12, 2021, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. It does not provide the agreement’s terms.
Ruling
The court ordered that all previously scheduled conferences and other deadlines were canceled. 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 court allowed the parties to apply to reopen the case within 30 days. Such an application had to show good cause for keeping the case open despite the settlement; a later application or one lacking a showing of good cause could be denied on that basis. The court also stated that, if the parties wanted it to retain jurisdiction—meaning authority—to enforce the settlement agreement, they had to submit the agreement and request an order expressly retaining jurisdiction within the same 30-day period.
Classification
This is a procedural order because the court dismissed the case following the parties’ reported agreement rather than deciding the underlying claims. The dismissal was with prejudice, and the order expressly addressed the limited circumstances for reopening the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.