Abreu v. Fairway Market LLC
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:17-cv-09532
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Abreu v. Fairway Market LLC, Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice and without costs, while allowing a 30-day reopening request.
The eight named plaintiffs and the five named Fairway defendants were affected by the dismissal, closure of the case, termination of open motions, and 30-day procedures for reopening the case or requesting continued authority to enforce the settlement.
What happened
In Abreu v. Fairway Market LLC, the parties told the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The opinion does not describe the agreement's terms or the claims involved.
The court canceled scheduled conferences and deadlines, dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, including attorneys' fees, terminated all open motions, and closed the case. The parties could ask to reopen the case within 30 days if they showed good cause.
Judge Valerie Caproni also said the parties could ask the court to keep authority to enforce their settlement agreement if they submitted the agreement and a request within the same 30-day period.
The detailed version
- Abreu v. Fairway Market LLC · No. 1:17-cv-09532
- Valerie Caproni
- Jan. 7, 2022
Background
The plaintiffs are Jose Abreu, Sergio De Los Santos, Ronald DeJesus, Victor Fermin, Luis Nunez Peralta, Angel Rivera, Renee Rodriguez, and Dionicio Estrella. The defendants are Fairway Market LLC, Fairway Group Holdings, Corp., Fairway Chelsea, LLC, Fairway Uptown, LLC, and Fairway Woodland Park LLC.
On January 7, 2022, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The opinion does not state the agreement's terms or identify the underlying claims.
Court's Order
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 of Court was directed to terminate all open motions and close the case. The court also directed the Clerk to lift the stay in the case.
The parties could apply to reopen the case within 30 days. The application had to show good cause for keeping the case open despite the settlement; a late application or one without a showing of good cause could be denied on that basis alone.
If the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—that is, continuing authority—to enforce their settlement agreement, they had to submit the agreement and ask the court to expressly retain that authority within the same 30-day period.
Disposition
The court dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, terminated the open motions, and closed the case. The order did not decide the merits of the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.