Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 28, 2022

Abreu v. Castle Foods LLC

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:22-cv-01209
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Abreu v. Castle Foods, Judge Abrams discontinued the action without prejudice while the parties finalized a settlement.

Who this affects

Luigi Abreu, Castle Foods LLC, and the other people described in the complaint as similarly situated; the action was closed subject to a possible timely request to restore it.

What happened

In Abreu v. Castle Foods LLC, the court was told that the parties were finalizing a settlement agreement. Luigi Abreu brought the action individually and on behalf of others described as similarly situated.

The court discontinued the action without costs to either party and without prejudice to restoring it to the court’s docket within 30 days. The court directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.

Judge Ronnie Abrams also said that any request to reopen the case must be filed within 30 days, and that a settlement the court would enforce must be placed on the public record and approved by the court within that period.

The detailed version

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

Case
Abreu v. Castle Foods LLC · No. 1:22-cv-01209
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
June 28, 2022

Background

Luigi Abreu sued Castle Foods LLC individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. The opinion states that the parties reported they were in the process of finalizing a settlement agreement.

Court’s Action

The court ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring it to the court’s docket if an application was made within 30 days. It directed the Clerk of Court 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 the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement, the settlement’s terms had to be placed on the public record and approved by the court within the same 30-day period.

Result

The court discontinued and closed the action; the opinion does not describe the settlement’s terms or state that the settlement had been completed.

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.