Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 9, 2021

Calcano v. Springs Window Fashions, LLC

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:20-cv-06632
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Calcano v. Springs Window Fashions, Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice, without costs, and without binding absent putative class members.

Who this affects

Evelina Calcano and Springs Window Fashions, LLC were affected by the dismissal and settlement. Absent putative class members were not bound by them.

What happened

In Calcano v. Springs Window Fashions, LLC, 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 without costs or attorneys’ fees to either party, and closed the case. The parties could ask to reopen it within 30 days for good cause.

Judge Caproni also ruled that the dismissal and any settlement bind only the plaintiff and defendant, not absent people who might have been part of the proposed class.

The detailed version

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

Case
Calcano v. Springs Window Fashions, LLC · No. 1:20-cv-06632
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
Apr. 9, 2021

Background

On April 8, 2021, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The opinion does not describe the agreement’s terms.

Ruling

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 order allowed the parties to apply to reopen the case within 30 days. Any application had to show good cause for keeping the case open in light of the settlement. The court also stated that, if the parties wanted it to retain authority to enforce the settlement, they had to submit the settlement agreement and request an order expressly retaining that authority within the same 30-day period.

Effect on the Proposed Class

The court directed the Clerk to remove the language referring to the plaintiff as suing “individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated.” Because the parties had not told the court they intended to follow the federal class-settlement procedure, the dismissal and any settlement applied only between Evelina Calcano and Springs Window Fashions, LLC. They did not bind absent members of the proposed class.

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.