Quezada v. Neostrata Company, Inc.
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:20-cv-10467
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Judge Caproni dismissed Quezada v. Neostrata with prejudice and without costs after the parties reported an agreement in principle.
Jose Quezada and Neostrata Company, Inc.; the caption also identifies others similarly situated, but the order does not describe them or state whether a class was certified.
What happened
Quezada v. Neostrata Company, Inc. concerns a case brought by Jose Quezada on behalf of himself and others described in the caption as similarly situated. The parties told the court that 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 pay costs or attorneys’ fees. The clerk was directed to terminate all open motions and close the case.
Judge Valerie Caproni also allowed the parties to ask to reopen the case within 30 days if they showed good cause. To have the court retain authority to enforce their settlement, the parties had to submit the settlement agreement and request that authority within the same 30-day period.
The detailed version
- Quezada v. Neostrata Company, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-10467
- Valerie Caproni
- Apr. 2, 2021
Background
The caption identifies Jose Quezada as the plaintiff, bringing the case on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and identifies Neostrata Company, Inc. as the defendant. The order states that on April 1, 2021, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The order does not describe the underlying claims or the terms of that agreement.
Court’s 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.
Within 30 days, the parties could apply to reopen the case. Any such application had to show good cause for keeping the case open in light of the settlement and had to be filed within that 30-day period. 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 order also states that, if the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—meaning authority to enforce the settlement agreement—they had to submit the agreement and ask the court to expressly retain that authority within the same 30-day period.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.