Stevez v. Russell Sage College

Background

On January 26, 2022, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the terms of that agreement.

Court’s orders

The court canceled all previously scheduled conferences and other deadlines. It dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, including attorney 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. Such an application had to show good cause for keeping the case open in light of the parties’ settlement and had to be filed within that 30-day period. The court stated that a request filed later 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 authority to enforce their settlement agreement, they had to submit the agreement and request an order expressly retaining that authority within the same 30-day period.

Class allegations

The court ordered the clerk to remove from the caption the language stating that Arturo Stevez was suing individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated people. 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-action settlements and dismissals, the court stated that the dismissal and any settlement operated only between Stevez and Russell Sage College. They did not bind absent potential class members.

Disposition

Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, directed that the case be closed, and limited the effect of the dismissal and any settlement to the individual parties.