Angeles v. Heavenly Goddess Spa Parties, Inc.
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:20-cv-10168
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Angeles v. Heavenly Goddess Spa Parties, Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice and without costs, allowing a 30-day reopening request.
The dismissal ended Jenisa Angeles’s case against Heavenly Goddess Spa Parties, Inc. The court did not state the settlement’s terms or the effect on other people represented by the action.
What happened
In Angeles v. Heavenly Goddess Spa Parties, Inc., the parties told the court they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The opinion does not describe the agreement’s terms.
The court canceled all scheduled conferences and deadlines. It also terminated all open motions and closed the case.
Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, including attorneys’ fees, to either party. The parties could ask to reopen the case within 30 days by showing good cause; they could also ask the court to retain authority to enforce their settlement by submitting the agreement and a separate request within that period.
The detailed version
- Angeles v. Heavenly Goddess Spa Parties, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-10168
- Valerie Caproni
- Mar. 29, 2021
Background
Jenisa Angeles brought the case on behalf of herself and others similarly situated against Heavenly Goddess Spa Parties, Inc. The opinion states that, on March 26, 2021, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. It does not provide the settlement’s terms or explain the underlying claims.
Order
The court canceled all previously scheduled conferences and other deadlines. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate all open motions and close the case.
Disposition
Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, including attorneys’ fees, to either party. The court allowed the parties to apply to reopen the case within 30 days, but any application had to show good cause for keeping the case open in light of the settlement. The court stated that a request filed after 30 days or 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 agreement under Rule 6.A of the court’s Individual Practices and request an order expressly retaining jurisdiction, both within the same 30-day period.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.