Velazquez v. Snip-Its Franchise Company, LLC
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:23-cv-00103
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Velazquez v. Snip-Its Franchise Company, LLC, Judge Abrams closed the settled case without costs, allowing restoration applications within 60 days.
The order affects Bryan Velazquez and Snip-Its Franchise Company, LLC by discontinuing and closing their case. It does not describe the settlement terms or explain any effect on people Velazquez sought to represent.
What happened
Velazquez v. Snip-Its Franchise Company, LLC involved Bryan Velazquez, who sued individually and on behalf of others similarly situated. The opinion says the Court was informed that the case had been settled.
The Court discontinued the action without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring it if an application was made within 60 days. The Clerk was directed to close the case. The order does not describe the settlement’s terms.
Judge Ronnie Abrams issued the order on April 20, 2023. She also stated that any request for the Court to retain authority to enforce the settlement had to place the agreement on the public record and obtain the Court’s approval within the same 60-day period.
The detailed version
- Velazquez v. Snip-Its Franchise Company, LLC · No. 1:23-cv-00103
- Ronnie Abrams
- Apr. 20, 2023
Background
Bryan Velazquez brought the action individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. The Court was informed that the case had been settled. The opinion does not provide the settlement’s terms or describe the claims’ underlying merits.
Ruling
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 60 days. It stated that any application to reopen filed after that period could be denied solely because it was late. The Court also stated that, if the parties wanted it to retain jurisdiction—the authority 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 60-day period. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.
Effect of the Order
The order closed the case following the reported settlement but did not decide the underlying claims. It does not state whether the Court approved any settlement or explain the settlement’s effect on people Velazquez sought to represent.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.