Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 12, 2022

Velazquez v. Scholl's Wellness Company, LLC

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:22-cv-04647
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Velazquez v. Scholl’s Wellness Company, Judge Abrams discontinued the settled case without costs or prejudice, allowing restoration within 60 days.

Who this affects

Bryan Velazquez, the people he sought to represent, and Scholl’s Wellness Company, LLC. The order also affects any party seeking to restore or reopen the case or asking the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement.

What happened

Velazquez v. Scholl’s Wellness Company, LLC was a case brought by Bryan Velazquez on behalf of himself and others similarly situated against Scholl’s Wellness Company, LLC. The court was told that the case had been settled.

The order does not describe the settlement’s terms or decide the parties’ underlying claims. It directs that the case be discontinued without costs to either party and without prejudice to restoring it to the court’s docket within 60 days.

Judge Ronnie Abrams also stated that any request to reopen the case filed after 60 days may be denied on that basis. The clerk was directed to close the case; the court would retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement only if its terms were placed on the public record and approved by the court within the same 60-day period.

The detailed version

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

Case
Velazquez v. Scholl's Wellness Company, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-04647
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
Sept. 12, 2022

Background

Bryan Velazquez brought the action on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated against Scholl’s Wellness Company, LLC. The court’s order states that it had been reported that the case was settled, but it does not provide the settlement’s terms.

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 to restore was made within 60 days. The court stated that any application to reopen filed after that period could be denied solely because it was late. The clerk was directed to close the case.

The order further states that, if the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement, the agreement’s terms had to be placed on the public record and approved by the court within the same 60-day period. Judge Ronnie Abrams did not decide the underlying claims in this order.

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.