Fontanez v. Food52, Inc.
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:22-cv-09584
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
Fontanez v. FOODS2 was discontinued after a settlement in principle, with possible restoration within 30 days, Judge Abrams ordered.
Ramon Fontanez, FOODS2, Inc., and the proposed class members are affected by the discontinuance and the 30-day deadline for seeking restoration or court retention of settlement-enforcement jurisdiction.
What happened
Ramon Fontanez brought this proposed class action against FOODS2, Inc. The court was told that the case had been settled in principle, but the order did not describe the settlement’s terms or say it was final.
The court discontinued the action without costs to either party and without prejudice to restoring it if an application was made within 30 days. The Clerk was directed to close the case.
Judge Ronnie Abrams also said any request to reopen filed after 30 days could be denied solely because it was late. The court would retain jurisdiction to enforce a settlement only if the agreement’s terms were placed on the public record and approved by the court within that period.
The detailed version
- Fontanez v. Food52, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-09584
- Ronnie Abrams
- Feb. 17, 2023
Background
Ramon Fontanez sued FOODS2, Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. The opinion states that the court was informed that the case had been settled in principle. It does not provide the settlement terms or state that the settlement had been finally approved.
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 30 days. The court stated that an application to reopen filed after that period could be denied solely because it was late. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.
The court further stated that, if the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—the 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 order did not decide the underlying claims or the merits of the proposed class action.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.