Hecht v. Tomy International, Inc.
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:20-cv-06751
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Hecht v. Tomy International, Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice and without costs, while allowing possible reopening within 30 days.
The dismissal affected Irene Hecht and Tomy International, Inc.; the case was closed, subject to the stated 30-day procedures for seeking reopening or requesting retained authority to enforce the settlement.
What happened
Hecht v. Tomy International, Inc. was brought by Irene Hecht on behalf of herself and others in a similar situation. The parties told the court they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues.
The court canceled all scheduled conferences and deadlines. It dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, including attorneys’ fees, to either party, and directed the clerk to close the case.
Judge Valerie Caproni allowed the parties to apply to reopen the case within 30 days if they showed good cause. The parties could also ask the court to keep authority to enforce their settlement by submitting the agreement and a request within that same 30-day period.
The detailed version
- Hecht v. Tomy International, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-06751
- Valerie Caproni
- Dec. 14, 2020
Background
Irene Hecht brought the case on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated. On December 10, 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.
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. “With prejudice” means the case was closed in a way that generally bars refiling the same claims. The clerk was directed to terminate all open motions and close the case.
Possible reopening and settlement enforcement
The parties were permitted to apply to reopen the case within 30 days of the order. Such an application had to show good cause for keeping the case open despite the settlement. The order warned that a request filed after 30 days, or filed without a showing of good cause, could be denied on that basis alone.
If the parties wanted the court to retain authority to enforce the settlement agreement, they had to submit the agreement in accordance with Rule 6.A of the court’s individual practices and request an order expressly retaining that authority, also within the 30-day period. The order did not itself state that the court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.