Paguada v. Micron Technology, Inc.
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:21-cv-00559
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Paguada v. Micron Technology, Judge Abrams discontinued the action after the parties reported an agreement in principle to settle.
Dilenia Paguada and the persons similarly situated whom she sought to represent; Micron Technology, Inc.
What happened
Paguada v. Micron Technology, Inc. was brought by Dilenia Paguada on behalf of herself and people similarly situated. The court was told that the parties had reached an agreement in principle to settle.
The order discontinued the action without costs to either party and without prejudice to restoring it within 30 days. It also directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
Judge Ronnie Abrams did not decide the underlying claims. The order stated that any request for the court to retain authority to enforce a settlement had to place the settlement terms on the public record and obtain the court’s approval within the same 30-day period.
The detailed version
- Paguada v. Micron Technology, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-00559
- Ronnie Abrams
- Mar. 26, 2021
Background
Dilenia Paguada brought the action on behalf of herself and all persons similarly situated. The opinion states that the parties reported reaching an agreement in principle to settle the matter. It does not provide the settlement’s terms or state that the settlement had been finalized.
Ruling
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. The court warned that an application filed after that period could be denied solely because it was late. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.
Settlement Enforcement
The court stated that, if the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—meaning continuing authority—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 order did not reach the merits of the underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.