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

Jeronimo v. Disfruta Products, LLC

Judge
Lorna Schofield
Docket
1:22-cv-04166
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Jeronimo v. Disfruta Products, Judge Schofield approved the settlement and dismissed the action, subject to a 30-day restoration period.

Who this affects

Leocadia Jeronimo and Disfruta Products, LLC, along with the other defendants named in the action.

What happened

In Jeronimo v. Disfruta Products, the parties asked the court to approve a proposed settlement on November 18, 2022. The order does not describe the underlying claims or the settlement’s terms.

The court found the settlement fair and reasonable based on the nature and scope of the plaintiff’s claims and the risks and expenses of continued litigation. It dismissed the action in its entirety, without an award of attorneys’ fees or costs.

Judge Schofield allowed the action to be restored to the court’s calendar if an application was made within 30 days. Pending motions were dismissed as moot, conferences and deadlines were canceled, and the court declined to retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement after that 30-day period.

The detailed version

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

Case
Jeronimo v. Disfruta Products, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-04166
Judge
Lorna Schofield
Date
Nov. 22, 2022

Background

On November 18, 2022, the parties moved for approval of a proposed settlement. The opinion does not state the specific claims, settlement amount, or other settlement terms.

Ruling

The court approved the settlement agreement as fair and reasonable. It based that determination on the nature and scope of the plaintiff’s claims and the risks and expenses involved in additional litigation.

The court dismissed the action in its entirety and awarded no attorneys’ fees or costs. The dismissal was without prejudice to restoring the action to the court’s calendar if an application was made within 30 days of the order. An application filed after 30 days could be denied solely because it was late.

The court declined to retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement beyond that 30-day period and directed the parties to the appropriate forum if the settlement was breached. Any pending motions were dismissed as moot, and all conferences and deadlines were canceled.

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.