Venticinque v. Back to Nature Foods Company, LLC
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:22-cv-07497
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Venticinque v. Back to Nature Foods, Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice, but the settlement binds only the named parties, not absent putative class members.
The dismissal directly affects Gracemarie Venticinque and Back to Nature Foods Company, LLC. The order states that any settlement does not bind absent putative class members.
What happened
Grac emarie Venticinque v. Back to Nature Foods Company, LLC was brought by Venticinque individually and for a proposed class. The parties told the court they had reached an agreement on all issues.
The court canceled upcoming conferences and deadlines, dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs or attorneys’ fees to either party, and directed the clerk to close the case. The parties may ask to reopen it within 30 days for good cause, and they may ask the court to retain authority to enforce their settlement by submitting the agreement and a separate request within that period.
Judge Valerie Caproni ordered that the class-related language be removed from the caption. Because the parties did not notify the court that they intended to follow the class-settlement procedure in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), the dismissal and settlement apply only between Venticinque and the defendant and do not bind absent putative class members.
The detailed version
- Venticinque v. Back to Nature Foods Company, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-07497
- Valerie Caproni
- July 16, 2025
Background
Gracemarie Venticinque sued Back to Nature Foods Company, LLC, individually and on behalf of a proposed class of similarly situated people. The opinion states that on July 14, 2025, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement resolving all issues.
Ruling
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 order allows the parties to apply to reopen the case within 30 days. Such an application must show good cause for keeping the case open despite the settlement. The order also states that, if the parties want the court to retain jurisdiction—meaning authority—to enforce the settlement agreement, they must submit the agreement and request an order expressly retaining that authority within the same 30-day period.
Effect on the Proposed Class
The court directed the clerk to remove the phrase “individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons” from the caption. The parties had not notified the court that they intended to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), which governs certain class settlements and dismissals. As a result, the court stated that the dismissal and any settlement operate only between Venticinque and Back to Nature Foods Company, LLC. They do not bind absent members of the proposed class.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.