Nisbett v. Ponto LLC
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:21-cv-07513
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Nisbett v. Ponto LLC, Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice and closed it.
Kareem Nisbett and Ponto LLC were directly affected by the dismissal and settlement. Absent proposed class members were not bound by the dismissal or any settlement.
What happened
Nisbett v. Ponto LLC concerned Kareem Nisbett’s individual and proposed class claims against Ponto LLC. The parties told the court they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues.
The court canceled scheduled conferences and deadlines and directed the clerk to close the case. The dismissal was with prejudice and without costs, including attorneys’ fees, to either party.
Judge Valerie Caproni allowed the parties 30 days to seek reopening for good cause or to ask the court to retain authority to enforce their settlement. Because the parties had not indicated they would follow the rule governing class settlements, the dismissal and any settlement bind only Nisbett and Ponto LLC, not absent proposed class members.
The detailed version
- Nisbett v. Ponto LLC · No. 1:21-cv-07513
- Valerie Caproni
- Jan. 3, 2022
Background
Kareem Nisbett sued Ponto LLC individually and on behalf of other similarly situated people. On December 23, 2021, the parties informed the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues.
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.
The parties were given 30 days to apply to reopen the case. Any application had to show good cause for keeping the case open despite the settlement. The court also stated that, if the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—the 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.
The court directed the clerk to remove the language identifying Nisbett as suing on behalf of others similarly situated from the case caption. Because the parties had not notified the court that they intended to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), which governs certain class settlements, the dismissal and any settlement applied only between Nisbett and Ponto LLC. They did not bind absent members of the proposed class.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.