Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 8, 2020

Calcano v. Stance, Inc.

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:19-cv-11229
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Calcano v. Stance, Inc., Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice and without costs, while allowing a 30-day reopening application.

Who this affects

Marcos Calcano, Stance, Inc., and the putative group of similarly situated people he represented; the case was closed, subject to the order’s 30-day reopening and settlement-enforcement procedures.

What happened

Marcos Calcano sued Stance, Inc. on behalf of himself and other similarly situated people. The parties told the court they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues.

The court canceled 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 close the case and terminate all open motions.

Judge Valerie Caproni allowed the parties 30 days to seek reopening for good cause. During that period, they could also ask the court to retain authority to enforce their settlement agreement by submitting the agreement and a separate request.

The detailed version

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

Case
Calcano v. Stance, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-11229
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
June 8, 2020

Background

Marcos Calcano brought the case on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated against Stance, Inc. The opinion states that, on June 5, 2020, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The order does not describe the settlement’s terms.

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 were permitted to apply to reopen the case within 30 days. Such an application had to show good cause for keeping the case open despite the settlement. The order states that a request filed after 30 days or without a showing of good cause could be denied on that basis alone.

The parties could also ask the court to retain jurisdiction—meaning authority to enforce the settlement agreement—if they submitted the agreement and a request for an order expressly retaining that authority within the same 30-day period.

Classification

This is a procedural order. The court closed the case based on the parties’ settlement and did not decide the underlying claims.

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.