Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 28, 2020

Zanca v. Melt Cosmetics

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:20-cv-07669
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Zanca v. Melt Cosmetics, Judge Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice after the parties reported an agreement in principle.

Who this affects

Debra Zanca, the people she sought to represent, and Melt Cosmetics. The case was closed, with no costs or attorneys’ fees awarded to either party.

What happened

In Zanca v. Melt Cosmetics, Debra Zanca sued Melt Cosmetics on behalf of herself and others described as similarly situated. 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 pay costs or attorneys’ fees. The clerk was directed to terminate pending motions and close the case.

The parties may ask to reopen the case within 30 days if they show good cause. Judge Valerie Caproni also explained that the court would retain power to enforce the agreement only if the parties timely submitted the agreement and requested that power.

The detailed version

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

Case
Zanca v. Melt Cosmetics · No. 1:20-cv-07669
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
Dec. 28, 2020

Background

Debra Zanca brought the case on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated against Melt Cosmetics. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the terms of the parties’ agreement. On December 23, 2020, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues.

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 of Court was directed to terminate all open motions and close the case.

The parties may apply to reopen the case within 30 days. The application must show good cause for keeping the case open despite the parties’ settlement, and an application filed after 30 days or without a showing of good cause may be denied on that basis.

The court also stated that, if the parties want the court to retain jurisdiction—meaning continuing authority to enforce their settlement agreement—they must, within the same 30-day period, submit the agreement under the court’s Individual Practices and request an order expressly retaining that authority.

Disposition

Judge Valerie Caproni entered the dismissal and directed that the case be closed, subject to the stated 30-day procedures for seeking reopening or requesting that the court retain authority to enforce the settlement agreement.

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.