Sanchez v. Decathlon USA LLC
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:22-cv-02319
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
Judge Abrams discontinued Sanchez v. Decathlon USA LLC after the Court was told the case had settled, allowing timely restoration without prejudice.
Cristian Sanchez, the defendant Decathlon USA LLC, and the other people identified in the complaint as similarly situated were affected by the case’s discontinuance and closure. The opinion does not describe the settlement’s effect on them.
What happened
In Sanchez v. Decathlon USA LLC, the Court was told that the case had been settled. The opinion does not describe the settlement’s terms or the claims’ merits.
The Court discontinued the action without costs to either party and without prejudice to restoring it to the docket if an application was made within 30 days. The Clerk was directed to close the case.
Judge Ronnie Abrams also stated that any request for the Court to retain authority to enforce the settlement had to place the settlement terms on the public record and receive the Court’s approval within the same 30-day period.
The detailed version
- Sanchez v. Decathlon USA LLC · No. 1:22-cv-02319
- Ronnie Abrams
- July 28, 2022
Background
The opinion states that the Court was informed that this action had been settled. The text does not provide the settlement terms, identify the claims’ substance, or explain whether any settlement received class approval.
Disposition
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 stated that an application filed later may be denied solely because it was untimely. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.
The Court further stated that, if the parties wanted the Court 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 opinion cites Hendrickson v. United States, 791 F.3d 354, 358 (2d Cir. 2015), on that point.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.