Tavarez v. Akervall Technologies, Inc.
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:21-cv-09895
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Tavarez v. Akervall Technologies, Judge Abrams discontinued the settled action without costs and without prejudice to timely restoration.
Victoriano Tavarez, the people he sought to represent, and Akervall Technologies, Inc.; the action was discontinued after the parties reported reaching a settlement.
What happened
In Tavarez v. Akervall Technologies, Inc., the court was told that the parties had settled all issues in the proposed class action brought by Victoriano Tavarez against Akervall Technologies, Inc.
The court discontinued the case without costs to either party and without prejudice to restoring it if an application was made within 30 days. It also directed the clerk to terminate the pending motion and close the case.
Judge Ronnie Abrams entered the order. The order allowed the court to retain authority to enforce the settlement only if the settlement terms were placed on the public record and approved by the court within the same 30-day period.
The detailed version
- Tavarez v. Akervall Technologies, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-09895
- Ronnie Abrams
- May 18, 2022
Background
Victoriano Tavarez sued Akervall Technologies, Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. The court stated that it had been informed that the parties reached a settlement on all issues.
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 30 days. The order stated that any application to reopen filed after that period could be denied solely because it was late.
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. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion pending at Docket 7 and close the case.
Effect of the Order
The order discontinued and closed the case based on the reported settlement. It did not decide the underlying claims or state the settlement’s terms. The opinion text contains a date inconsistency: the electronic filing information identifies May 18, 2022, while the signed order states May 18, 2020.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.