Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 6, 2024

Fagnani v. P.K. Kinder Co. Inc.

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:24-cv-00749
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Fagnani v. P.K. Kinder Co., Judge Abrams discontinued the settled case without costs, allowing restoration within 45 days.

Who this affects

Mykayla Fagnani, P.K. Kinder Co. Inc., and the people represented by Fagnani in the action.

What happened

Fagnani v. P.K. Kinder Co. involved Mykayla Fagnani’s case against P.K. Kinder Co. Inc., brought on behalf of herself and other similarly situated people. The court was informed that the case had been settled in principle.

The court discontinued the action without costs to either party. It allowed a party to ask to restore the case to the court’s docket within 45 days; a later request could be denied solely because it was late. The court also stated that any request for it to retain authority to enforce the settlement would require the settlement terms to be placed on the public record and approved by the court within the period stated in the order.

Judge Ronnie Abrams ordered the Clerk of Court to close the case. The order did not decide the underlying claims or describe the settlement’s terms.

The detailed version

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

Case
Fagnani v. P.K. Kinder Co. Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-00749
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
May 6, 2024

Background

Mykayla Fagnani brought this action against P.K. Kinder Co. Inc. on behalf of herself and other similarly situated people. The opinion states that the Court was informed that the case had been settled in principle, but it does not describe the claims or the settlement terms.

Court’s Action

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. The order states that any application to reopen filed after that period could be denied solely because it was late.

The court further stated that, if the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—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 thirty-day period stated in the order. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.

Significance and Disposition

This order ended the case based on the reported settlement in principle; it did not decide the parties’ underlying legal claims. The court discontinued the action and directed that the case be closed.

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.