Estevez v. Hungry Pet Nutrition, LLC
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:21-cv-08823
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Estevez v. Hungry Pet Nutrition, Judge Abrams discontinued the settled case without costs, allowing restoration within 30 days.
Arturo Estevez, Hungry Pet Nutrition, LLC, and the other people identified in the complaint as similarly situated. The case was closed after the reported settlement, subject to a possible application to restore or reopen it within 30 days.
What happened
Estevez v. Hungry Pet Nutrition, LLC involved Arturo Estevez’s case against Hungry Pet Nutrition, LLC, brought individually and for others similarly situated. The court was told that the case had been settled.
The court discontinued the action without costs to either party and without prejudice to restoring it if an application was made within 30 days. An application filed later could be denied solely because it was late.
Judge Ronnie Abrams directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. The parties could ask the court to retain authority to enforce the settlement only if they placed the settlement terms on the public record and obtained the court’s approval within the same 30-day period. The opinion does not address the case’s underlying claims or the settlement’s terms.
The detailed version
- Estevez v. Hungry Pet Nutrition, LLC · No. 1:21-cv-08823
- Ronnie Abrams
- Apr. 6, 2022
Background
The court stated that it had been informed that this action had been settled. The opinion does not provide the settlement’s terms or describe the underlying claims beyond the caption’s statement that Arturo Estevez sued individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated.
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. It further stated that any application to reopen the action had to be filed within 30 days of the order and that a later application could be denied solely on that basis.
The court also stated that, if the parties wanted it to retain jurisdiction—that is, authority to enforce the settlement agreement—the settlement terms had to be placed on the public record and approved by the court within the same 30-day period. Judge Ronnie Abrams directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. The order did not decide the merits of the parties’ dispute.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.