Agostini v. Cougar Corporation
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:24-cv-09059
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Agostini v. Cougar Corporation: Judge Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice after an agreement in principle, binding any settlement only on the individual parties.
Lunique Agostini and Cougar Corporation were directly affected by the dismissal and any settlement. Absent putative class members were not bound by the dismissal or settlement under this order.
What happened
In Agostini v. Cougar Corporation, the parties told the court they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The case was brought by Lunique Agostini on behalf of herself and others similarly situated.
The court canceled scheduled conferences and deadlines, dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs or attorneys’ fees to either party, terminated open motions, and closed the case. The parties could ask to reopen it within 30 days by showing good cause.
Judge Valerie Caproni also ordered the caption changed to remove the language referring to others similarly situated. Because the parties had not told the court they would follow the rule governing class settlements, any dismissal or settlement applied only between Lunique Agostini and Cougar Corporation and did not bind absent putative class members.
The detailed version
- Agostini v. Cougar Corporation · No. 1:24-cv-09059
- Valerie Caproni
- Apr. 24, 2025
Background
On April 23, 2025, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues.
Court’s order
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 of Court was directed to terminate all open motions and close the case.
The parties were permitted to apply to reopen the case within 30 days. Such an application had to show good cause for keeping the case open despite the settlement. The order states that a request filed after 30 days or without a showing of good cause could be denied solely on that basis.
Settlement enforcement
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 that authority within the same 30-day period. The agreement had to be submitted in accordance with Rule 7.A of the court’s Individual Practices.
Putative class members
The court directed the Clerk to remove from the caption the words “individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated” after the individual plaintiff’s name. Because the parties had not notified the court that they intended to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), the court stated that the dismissal and any settlement operated only between Lunique Agostini and Cougar Corporation. They did not bind absent putative class members.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.