Tavarez v. Popcornopolis, LLC
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:21-cv-09884
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Tavarez v. Popcornopolis, Judge Abrams discontinued the action without costs and without prejudice while the parties finalized a settlement.
Vict oriano Tavarez, the people he identified as similarly situated, and Popcornopolis, LLC; the order also set conditions affecting any later request to restore or reopen the action and any request for the court to enforce a settlement.
What happened
In Tavarez v. Popcornopolis, LLC, Vict oriano Tavarez brought the action individually and for others described as similarly situated. The court was told that the parties were finalizing a settlement agreement.
The court discontinued the case without costs to either party and without prejudice to restoring it to the court’s docket within 30 days. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case. The order did not describe the settlement’s terms or decide the underlying claims.
Judge Ronnie Abrams also stated that any request to reopen filed after 30 days could be denied on that basis alone. If the parties wanted the court to keep authority to enforce the settlement, they 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
- Tavarez v. Popcornopolis, LLC · No. 1:21-cv-09884
- Ronnie Abrams
- Jan. 26, 2022
Background
Vict oriano Tavarez sued Popcornopolis, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. The opinion states that the parties reported that a settlement agreement was being finalized. It does not provide the claims’ factual or legal details or the settlement’s terms.
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 a restoration application was made within 30 days. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.
The court stated that any application to reopen the action had to be filed within 30 days of the order, and that an application filed later could be denied solely because it was late. The court further stated that, if the parties wanted it to retain jurisdiction—authority to enforce—the settlement agreement, the agreement’s terms had to be placed on the public record and approved by the court within that same 30-day period.
Disposition
The court discontinued the action under those conditions. The order did not decide the merits of the claims or state whether the settlement was ultimately completed. Judge Ronnie Abrams signed the order on January 26, 2022.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.