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

Angeles v. Gift Services, Inc.

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:21-cv-00311
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Angeles v. Gift Services, Inc., Judge Abrams discontinued the case after the parties reported a settlement, allowing restoration within 60 days.

Who this affects

Jenisa Angeles, Gift Services, Inc., and the putative group of similarly situated people represented in the action. The case was closed, but either side could seek restoration within 60 days; the parties could also ask the court to retain authority to enforce a settlement if they placed its terms on the public record and obtained the court’s approval within that period.

What happened

Angeles v. Gift Services, Inc. is a case brought by Jenisa Angeles for herself and others similarly situated against Gift Services, Inc.

The parties told the court in an April 2, 2021 letter that they had reached a settlement, but the settlement depended on signing a written agreement. The opinion does not describe the settlement’s terms.

Judge Ronnie Abrams discontinued the case without costs to either party and without prejudice to restoring it within 60 days. The clerk was directed to close the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Angeles v. Gift Services, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-00311
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
Apr. 5, 2021

Background

Jenisa Angeles brought this action on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated against Gift Services, Inc. The parties reported in an April 2, 2021 letter that they had reached a settlement, but said the settlement was contingent on executing a written settlement agreement. The opinion does not state the settlement’s terms or whether the parties had executed the agreement.

Court’s action

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 60 days. The court stated that any application to reopen had to be filed within 60 days of the order and that a later application could be denied solely because it was late. If the parties wanted the court 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 60-day period. The clerk was directed to close the case.

Effect

The order closed the case based on the parties’ reported settlement but preserved a 60-day opportunity to seek restoration. It did not describe or decide the underlying claims. The court issued the order through Judge Ronnie Abrams.

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.