Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 15, 2021

Paguada v. Ed Brown Products, Inc.

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:21-cv-00562
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Paguada v. Ed Brown Products, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the action after a settlement in principle, subject to restoration by May 14, 2021.

Who this affects

Dilenia Paguada, Ed Brown Products, Inc., and the putative group of others similarly situated whom the action purported to represent.

What happened

Dilenia Paguada brought this action against Ed Brown Products, Inc., on behalf of herself and others similarly situated. The parties informed the court that they had reached a settlement in principle.

The court discontinued the action without costs to either party and without prejudice to restoring it if the parties could not put their settlement into a written agreement. Any request to restore the action had to be made by May 14, 2021.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that, if no request to restore the action was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice.

The detailed version

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

Case
Paguada v. Ed Brown Products, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-00562
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
Apr. 15, 2021

Background

Dilenia Paguada brought the action against Ed Brown Products, Inc., on behalf of herself and others similarly situated. The parties sent the court a letter stating that they had reached a settlement in principle.

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 calendar if the parties were unable to memorialize their settlement in an agreement. The court required any application to restore the action to be made by May 14, 2021. If no such application was made by that date, the court stated that the dismissal would be with prejudice.

Effect

The opinion does not describe the settlement's terms. It makes the dismissal's final effect conditional on whether the parties requested restoration by the stated deadline.

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.