Calcano v. The Fort, Inc.

Background

On June 24, 2021, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The opinion does not state the agreement’s terms.

Court’s Orders

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.

The parties could apply to reopen the case within 30 days. The court stated that such an application had to show good cause for keeping the case open in light of the settlement, and that a request filed after 30 days or without a showing of good cause could be denied solely on that basis.

The court also explained that, if the parties wanted it to retain jurisdiction—legal authority—to enforce the settlement agreement, they had to submit the agreement and request an order expressly retaining that authority within the same 30-day period.

Class-Action Effect

The clerk was directed to remove the words “individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated” from the caption after Marcos Calcano’s name. Because the parties had not told the court they intended to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), the court stated that the dismissal and any settlement operated only between Calcano and The Fort, Inc. They did not bind absent putative class members.

Disposition and Classification

Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, closed the case, and made clear that the settlement did not bind absent putative class members. This is a procedural order because the case ended through a settlement-based dismissal rather than a decision on the underlying claims.