Calcano v. Aetrex, Inc.
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:24-cv-02064
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Calcano v. Aetrex, Inc., Judge Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice after an agreement in principle, without costs, and did not bind absent putative class members.
Marcos Calcano and Aetrex, Inc.; the dismissal and any settlement did not bind absent putative class members.
What happened
In Calcano v. Aetrex, Inc., Marcos Calcano sued Aetrex, Inc. on behalf of himself and other similarly situated people. The parties told the court they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues.
The court canceled scheduled conferences and deadlines, dismissed the case with prejudice, and ordered that neither side pay costs or attorneys’ fees. The clerk was directed to close the case and terminate pending motions. The parties could ask to reopen the case within 30 days by showing good cause, and they could request that the court retain authority to enforce their settlement by submitting the agreement and a separate request within that period.
Judge Valerie Caproni also removed the class-action language from the caption. Because the parties had not told the court they intended to follow the required class-settlement procedure, the dismissal and any settlement applied only between Calcano and Aetrex and did not bind absent putative class members.
The detailed version
- Calcano v. Aetrex, Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-02064
- Valerie Caproni
- June 28, 2024
Background
On June 26, 2024, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the settlement’s terms.
Court’s Orders
The court canceled all previously scheduled conferences and other deadlines. It dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, including attorneys’ fees, to either party. The clerk was directed to terminate all open motions and close the case.
The parties were allowed to apply to reopen the case within 30 days. Any such application had to show good cause for keeping the case open despite the parties’ settlement. The court stated that an application filed after 30 days, or filed without a showing of good cause, could be denied on that basis alone.
If the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—that is, continuing authority—to enforce their settlement agreement, they had to submit the agreement and request an order expressly retaining jurisdiction within the same 30-day period.
Putative Class Members
The court directed the clerk to remove the language “individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated” from the caption. Because the parties had not notified the court that they intended to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), the dismissal and any settlement were operative only between Marcos Calcano and Aetrex, Inc. They did not bind absent putative class members.
Disposition
The case was dismissed with prejudice and without costs to either party. The order did not decide the underlying claims on their merits.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.