Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 22, 2022

Mendez v. Caleres, Inc. d/b/a Naturalizer

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:19-cv-11184
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Mendez v. Caleres, Judge Abrams discontinued the action without costs and without prejudice while the parties finalized a settlement.

Who this affects

The order affects Himelda Mendez, the proposed group of others similarly situated, and Caleres, Inc. d/b/a Naturalizer because it discontinued and closed their action, subject to a possible application to restore or reopen it within 30 days.

What happened

In Mendez v. Caleres, Inc. d/b/a Naturalizer, Himelda Mendez sued individually and on behalf of others similarly situated. The court reported that the parties were finalizing a settlement agreement.

The court discontinued the action without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring it to the docket. An application to reopen had to be filed within 30 days of the order.

Judge Ronnie Abrams also directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. The order said that any settlement-enforcement jurisdiction would require the agreement’s terms to be placed on the public record and approved by the court within the same 30-day period.

The detailed version

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

Case
Mendez v. Caleres, Inc. d/b/a Naturalizer · No. 1:19-cv-11184
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
Aug. 22, 2022

Background

Himelda Mendez brought the action individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated against Caleres, Inc., doing business as Naturalizer. 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 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 filed after that period could be denied solely because it was late. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.

The court also stated that, if the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction 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 30-day period. The order did not state the settlement’s terms or approve a settlement.

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.