Delacruz v. Crocs, Inc.
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:19-cv-10199
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Delacruz v. Crocs, Inc., Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice, allowing a possible reopening request within 30 days.
Emanuel Delacruz and Crocs, Inc.; the case was brought by Delacruz on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated.
What happened
Delacruz v. Crocs, Inc. involved Emanuel Delacruz’s case against Crocs, Inc. on behalf of himself and similarly situated people. The parties told the court they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues.
The court canceled all scheduled conferences and deadlines, dismissed the case with prejudice, and ordered that neither party would receive costs or attorneys’ fees. The Clerk was directed to terminate pending motions and close the case.
Judge Valerie Caproni stated that the parties could apply to reopen the case within 30 days if they showed good cause. If they wanted the court to retain authority to enforce their settlement, they also had to submit the settlement agreement and request that authority within the same period.
The detailed version
- Delacruz v. Crocs, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-10199
- Valerie Caproni
- Feb. 13, 2020
Background
Emanuel Delacruz brought this case against Crocs, Inc. on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated persons. On February 12, 2020, the parties informed the court 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 of Court was directed to terminate all open motions and close the case.
Settlement-related provisions
The court allowed the parties to apply to reopen the case within 30 days. Any such application had to show good cause for keeping the case open despite the settlement, and a late application or one without a showing of good cause could be denied on that basis alone.
The court also explained that, if the parties wanted it to retain jurisdiction—meaning authority to enforce the settlement agreement—they had to submit the settlement agreement and request an order expressly retaining jurisdiction within the same 30-day period.
Disposition
Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, including attorneys’ fees, and directed that the case be closed. The order did not decide the underlying claims on their merits; it acted on the parties’ reported settlement.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.