Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 25, 2023

Toro v. Down in the Valley, Inc.

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:22-cv-08278
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Toro v. Down in the Valley, Inc., Judge Abrams discontinued the case after being told it had settled in principle, allowing timely restoration.

Who this affects

Luis Toro, Down in the Valley, Inc., and the people Toro sought to represent.

What happened

Toro v. Down in the Valley, Inc. was brought by Luis Toro on behalf of himself and others described as similarly situated. The court was told that the case had settled in principle.

The court discontinued the action without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring it if an application was made within 30 days. The court directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.

Judge Ronnie Abrams also said that any request to reopen filed after 30 days could be denied on that basis alone. If the parties wanted the court to keep authority to enforce a settlement, the settlement terms had to be placed on the public record and approved by the court within the same 30-day period.

The detailed version

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

Case
Toro v. Down in the Valley, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-08278
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
Apr. 25, 2023

Background The caption identifies Luis Toro as suing on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated. The court stated that it had been reported that the case had settled in principle. The order does not provide the settlement terms or decide the parties’ underlying claims.

Disposition 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. It directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. Any application to reopen filed after the 30-day period could be denied solely because it was late.

The court further stated that, if the parties wanted it to retain jurisdiction—meaning 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.

Ruling Judge Ronnie Abrams entered a procedural order discontinuing the case based on the reported settlement in principle. The order did not reach the merits of the 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.