Espinal v. USA
Frangie Espinal, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Naos USA, Inc.
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:26-cv-03028
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Frangie Espinal v. Naos USA, Inc., Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice, without costs, and said absent class members were not bound.
Frangie Espinal and Naos USA, Inc. are bound by the dismissal and any settlement between them. Absent potential class members are not bound.
What happened
Frangie Espinal brought this case against Naos USA, Inc. on behalf of herself and other similarly situated people. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims.
The parties informed the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The court canceled scheduled conferences and deadlines, dismissed the case with prejudice without costs or attorneys’ fees to either side, ended pending motions, and closed the case.
Judge Caproni directed the clerk to remove the class-related language from the caption. Because the parties had not said they would follow the procedure for court approval of a class settlement, the dismissal and settlement apply only to Espinal and Naos and do not bind absent potential class members.
The detailed version
- Espinal v. USA · No. 1:26-cv-03028
- Valerie Caproni
- July 20, 2026
Background
On July 16, 2026, 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 describe the settlement’s terms.
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 was directed to terminate all open motions and close the case.
The parties may apply to reopen the case within 30 days, but the application must show good cause for keeping the case open in light of the settlement. A request filed after 30 days or without a showing of good cause may be denied on that basis alone.
If the parties want the court to retain jurisdiction—meaning authority to enforce the settlement agreement—they must, within the same 30-day period, submit the settlement agreement under Rule 7.A of the court’s Individual Practices and ask the court to issue an order expressly retaining jurisdiction.
Class-Related Limitation
The court ordered the clerk to delete the words “individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated” from Espinal’s name in the caption. The parties had not notified the court that they intended to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), which governs court approval of certain class settlements. As a result, the dismissal and any settlement operate only between Espinal and Naos USA, Inc.; they do not bind absent members of the proposed class.
Disposition
Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, directed that the case be closed, and limited the effect of the dismissal and settlement to Espinal and Naos USA, Inc.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.