Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 17, 2022

Picon v. Holsten Jewelers Inc.

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:22-cv-03437
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Picon v. Holsten Jewelers, Judge Abrams discontinued the action after a reported settlement, without fees or costs, while allowing restoration within 45 days.

Who this affects

Yelitza Picon, the people she sought to represent, and Holsten Jewelers Inc.; the action was closed, subject to a possible application to restore it within 45 days.

What happened

Picon v. Holsten Jewelers Inc. was brought by Yelitza Picon on behalf of herself and other similarly situated people against Holsten Jewelers Inc. The court was told that all parties had reached a settlement in principle.

The court discontinued the action without fees or costs to any party. It allowed an application to restore the action to the court’s docket if filed within 45 days, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. The order did not state that the court approved the settlement.

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 45-day period.

The detailed version

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

Case
Picon v. Holsten Jewelers Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-03437
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
Aug. 17, 2022

Background

Yelitza Picon sued Holsten Jewelers Inc. on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated. The opinion states that the court was informed that a settlement in principle had been reached among all parties.

Court’s action

The court ordered that the action be discontinued without fees or costs to any party. The discontinuance was without prejudice to restoring the action to the court’s docket if an application to restore it was filed within 45 days of the order. The court warned that an application filed later could be denied solely because it was late.

The court further ordered that, if the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—continuing authority—to enforce a settlement agreement, the agreement’s terms had to be placed on the public record and approved by the court within the same 45-day period. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.

Disposition

Judge Ronnie Abrams discontinued the action and directed that the case be closed. The order did not state that the settlement was finally approved or otherwise decide the underlying claims.

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.