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

Carrico v. Yopti, LLC

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:22-cv-08191
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Carrico v. Yopti, LLC, Judge Abrams discontinued the reportedly settled case without costs and allowed timely restoration.

Who this affects

Joyce Carrico, Yopti, LLC, and the similarly situated people identified in the case caption; the action was closed subject to the stated restoration procedure.

What happened

Carrico v. Yopti, LLC was a case brought by Joyce Carrico on behalf of herself and other similarly situated people. The court was told that the case had settled.

The court discontinued the action without costs to either party and without prejudice to restoring it to the court’s docket if an application was made within 45 days. The court also directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.

Judge Ronnie Abrams entered the order on December 2, 2022. The order said that any settlement-enforcement request would require the agreement’s terms to be placed on the public record and approved by the court within the stated 30-day period.

The detailed version

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

Case
Carrico v. Yopti, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-08191
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
Dec. 2, 2022

Background

The opinion states that the Court was told the case had been settled. The case caption identifies Joyce Carrico as the plaintiff, acting on behalf of herself and other similarly situated people, and Yopti, LLC as the defendant. The opinion does not describe the claims, the settlement’s terms, or whether the court approved the settlement.

Order

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 45 days. It warned 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 order 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 opinion does not state that the court retained jurisdiction or that it approved any settlement terms.

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.