Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 21, 2022

Jimenez v. The Great Oregon Wine Company

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:22-cv-05387
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Jimenez v. The Great Oregon Wine Company, Judge Abrams discontinued the settled-in-principle case without costs, allowing restoration within 30 days.

Who this affects

Vanessa Jimenez, The Great Oregon Wine Company, and the putative similarly situated group identified in the caption; the action was closed subject to a possible application to restore it within 30 days.

What happened

Vanessa Jimenez brought this action individually and on behalf of others similarly situated against The Great Oregon Wine Company. The court was told that the parties had settled in principle.

The court did not decide the underlying claims or state that a final settlement had been approved. Instead, it discontinued the action without costs to any party.

Judge Ronnie Abrams allowed the action to be restored to the court’s docket if an application was made within 30 days and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. The order also stated that any request for the court to retain authority to enforce a settlement had to 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
Jimenez v. The Great Oregon Wine Company · No. 1:22-cv-05387
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
Sept. 21, 2022

Background

Vanessa Jimenez sued The Great Oregon Wine Company individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. The opinion does not describe the claims or the proposed settlement’s terms. It states only that the court was informed that the case had been settled in principle.

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 the action was made within 30 days. The order warned that an application filed later might be denied solely because it was untimely. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.

The order further stated that, if the parties wanted the court to retain 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 30-day period. The opinion does not say that the court approved a final settlement or resolved 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.