Alexandria v. D.S. & Durga
Erika Alexandria, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. D.S. & Durga, Inc.
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:25-cv-04484
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Alexandria v. D.S. & Durga, Judge Broderick ordered changes or additional explanation before considering the proposed consent decree.
The parties to the proposed consent decree, including Erika Alexandria and D.S. & Durga, Inc., as well as potential third-party beneficiaries and other people who did not sign the decree but might assert similar claims.
What happened
In Erika Alexandria v. D.S. & Durga, the parties submitted a proposed consent decree, and the defendant said it would protect the company from similar future federal lawsuits by other potential plaintiffs.
The court explained that a judgment generally binds only the parties, and that a class-action settlement binds class members only after notice and a hearing finding the settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate. The court had not been asked to make those findings, and the proposed decree did not include language preserving the rights of people who were not parties to the agreement.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick ordered the parties to file an amended consent decree by November 10, 2025, stating that the agreement would not detract from third-party rights, or to provide additional briefing explaining how the agreement could protect D.S. & Durga without harming the rights of people who did not sign it.
The detailed version
- Alexandria v. D.S. & Durga · No. 1:25-cv-04484
- Vernon Broderick
- Oct. 27, 2025
Background
The parties submitted a proposed consent decree, which is a settlement approved or entered by a court. D.S. & Durga stated that the decree would give it protection against future federal lawsuits by other potential plaintiffs asserting similar claims. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims.
Court’s analysis
The court relied on the general rule that a judgment binds only the parties to the lawsuit, subject to limited exceptions. It also explained that a settlement in a class action binds class members only if the court approves it after reasonable notice and a hearing at which the court finds that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. The court had not been asked to make that determination.
The court noted that prior consent decrees it had approved included language specifically stating that they did not bind members of the proposed classes identified in those cases. The proposed decree here contained no similar provision. The opinion therefore identified a conflict between the defendant’s stated desire for protection from future similar lawsuits and the rights of people who were not parties to the decree.
Order
The court ordered the parties, by November 10, 2025, either to file an amended consent decree clearly stating that the agreement was not intended to detract from the rights of third-party beneficiaries or to submit supplemental briefing explaining how the agreement would protect D.S. & Durga from future federal lawsuits without detracting from the rights of non-signatories. The order did not state that the proposed consent decree was approved or rejected.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.