Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 3, 2020

Slade v. Glamsquad, Inc.

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:19-cv-07506
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Slade v. Glamsquad, Inc., Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice and without costs, while allowing a 30-day reopening request.

Who this affects

Linda Slade, the proposed class described in the caption, and Glamsquad, Inc.; the case was dismissed and closed after the parties reported an agreement in principle.

What happened

In Slade v. Glamsquad, Inc., Linda Slade sued Glamsquad, Inc., individually and as the representative of a proposed class. The parties told the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues.

The court canceled all scheduled conferences and other deadlines. It also directed the clerk to terminate all open motions and close the case.

Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, including attorneys’ fees, to either party. Within 30 days, the parties could ask to reopen the case by showing good cause. They could also ask the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce their settlement by submitting the settlement agreement and a request for an order retaining jurisdiction.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Slade v. Glamsquad, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-07506
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
Jan. 3, 2020

Background

The caption identifies Linda Slade as the plaintiff, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, and Glamsquad, Inc. as the defendant. The parties notified the court on January 2, 2020, that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues.

Court’s Action

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 allowed the parties to apply to reopen the case within 30 days. Such an application had to show good cause for keeping the case open in light of the parties’ settlement. The court stated that a request filed after 30 days or without a showing of good cause could be denied solely on that basis.

The order also stated that, if the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce their settlement agreement, they had to submit the agreement and request an order expressly retaining jurisdiction within the same 30-day period.

Disposition

Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice and directed that it be closed. The order did not decide the underlying claims on their merits.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.