Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 2, 2022

Paguada v. Peculiar Roots L.L.C.

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:22-cv-01832
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Paguada v. Peculiar Roots LLC, Judge Abrams discontinued the action after a settlement was reported, without costs, allowing restoration within 30 days.

Who this affects

Dilenia Paguada, Peculiar Roots LLC, and the proposed group of similarly situated people represented in the action. The case was closed after the Court was told it had settled, subject to the stated 30-day restoration procedure.

What happened

Dilenia Paguada brought Paguada v. Peculiar Roots LLC individually and on behalf of others similarly situated. The opinion states that the Court was told the case had been settled.

The Court discontinued the action without costs to any party. It allowed an application to restore the action to the Court’s docket if filed within 30 days; later applications could be denied solely because they were late. The opinion does not provide the settlement’s terms.

Judge Ronnie Abrams also stated that the Court could retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement only if its terms were placed on the public record and approved by the Court within the same 30-day period. The Clerk was directed to close the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Paguada v. Peculiar Roots L.L.C. · No. 1:22-cv-01832
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
Nov. 2, 2022

Background

Dilenia Paguada sued Peculiar Roots LLC individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. The Court was informed that the case had been settled.

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 Court stated that an application 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 explained 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 30-day period. The opinion does not state the settlement’s terms or 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.