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

Toro v. Drone Nerds, Inc.

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:23-cv-01726
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Toro v. Drone Nerds, Judge Abrams discontinued the settled-in-principle case without costs and without prejudice to timely restoration.

Who this affects

Jasmine Toro, the people she sought to represent, and Drone Nerds, Inc.; the case was closed but could be restored if an application was made within 30 days.

What happened

Jasmine Toro brought this case on behalf of herself and others described as similarly situated against Drone Nerds, Inc. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims.

The court was informed that the case had been settled in principle. It did not describe the settlement’s terms or state that a final settlement had been approved.

Judge Ronnie Abrams discontinued the action without costs to either 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 and explained that any request for the court to retain authority to enforce a settlement had to be placed on the public record and approved by the court within that period.

The detailed version

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

Case
Toro v. Drone Nerds, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-01726
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
May 25, 2023

Background

Jasmine Toro sued Drone Nerds, Inc., on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated. The opinion does not identify the claims or provide details about the parties’ dispute.

What the Court Was Told

The court stated that it had been informed that the case had been settled in principle. The order does not provide the settlement’s terms, state that the settlement was final, or approve the settlement.

Order

Judge Ronnie Abrams ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring it to the court’s docket if an application to restore the action was made within 30 days. The order 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 the court to retain jurisdiction—that is, continuing 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. Judge Abrams directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.

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.