Riley v. Intimacy Management Company, LLC
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:25-cv-00051
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Riley v. Intimacy Management Company, Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice, without costs, and said the settlement does not bind putative class members.
Amanie Riley and Intimacy Management Company, LLC are directly bound by the dismissal. Any settlement operates only between them and does not bind absent putative class members.
What happened
In Riley v. Intimacy Management Company, the parties told the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The order does not describe the claims or the agreement’s terms.
The court canceled scheduled conferences and deadlines and dismissed the case with prejudice, without costs or attorneys’ fees to either party. It also removed the class-action language from the caption because the parties had not notified the court that they intended to follow the procedure for court approval of class settlements. Any settlement therefore operates only between Amanie Riley and Intimacy Management Company, LLC, and does not bind absent putative class members.
Judge Valerie Caproni directed the clerk to close the case and terminate pending motions. Within 30 days, the parties may ask to reopen the case by showing good cause; they may also ask the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce their settlement by submitting the agreement and a separate request within that period.
The detailed version
- Riley v. Intimacy Management Company, LLC · No. 1:25-cv-00051
- Valerie Caproni
- May 9, 2025
Background
On May 9, 2025, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The opinion does not state the underlying claims or provide the terms of the agreement.
Ruling
The court ordered that all previously scheduled conferences and other deadlines be canceled. 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.
Effect on the Putative Class
The plaintiff’s caption had identified her as suing individually and on behalf of others similarly situated. The court directed the clerk to delete that language because the parties had not notified the court that they intended to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), which governs certain proposed class settlements and dismissals. The order states that the dismissal and any settlement operate only between the individual plaintiff and the defendant and do not bind absent putative class members.
Possibility of Reopening or Retained Jurisdiction
Within 30 days, the parties may apply to reopen the case. The application must show good cause for keeping the case open in light of the settlement and must be filed within that 30-day period. The parties may also ask the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement, but they must submit the agreement in accordance with the court’s Individual Practices and request an order expressly retaining jurisdiction within the same period.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.