Young v. Tacori Enterprises
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:21-cv-09144
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Young v. Tacori Enterprises, Judge Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice after an agreement in principle, without binding absent putative class members.
Lawrence Young and Tacori Enterprises were bound by the dismissal and any settlement between them. Absent putative class members were not bound by the dismissal or settlement.
What happened
In Young v. Tacori Enterprises, the parties told the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The opinion does not describe the agreement’s terms.
The court canceled all scheduled conferences and deadlines, dismissed the case with prejudice without costs or attorneys’ fees to either party, closed the case, and directed the clerk to end any open motions. The parties could ask to reopen the case within 30 days by showing good cause. Any request to keep the court’s authority to enforce the agreement also had to include the agreement and a request for that authority within the same 30-day period.
Judge Valerie Caproni also ordered the caption changed to remove the class-action language. Because the parties had not said they would follow the rule governing settlements of class actions, the dismissal and any settlement applied only between Lawrence Young and Tacori Enterprises and did not bind absent putative class members.
The detailed version
- Young v. Tacori Enterprises · No. 1:21-cv-09144
- Valerie Caproni
- Jan. 28, 2022
Background
On January 26, 2022, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The order 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 were permitted to 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 settlement. The court stated that a request filed after 30 days or without a showing of good cause could be denied on that basis alone.
If the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—the authority to enforce their settlement agreement—they had to submit the agreement and a request for an order expressly retaining that jurisdiction within the same 30-day period.
Class-Action Effect
The court directed the clerk to remove the phrase “individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated” from the 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-action settlements and dismissals, the dismissal and any settlement were operative only between the individual plaintiff and defendant. They did not bind absent putative class members.
Disposition
Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice, without costs to either party, and directed that the case be closed. The order did not decide the underlying claims on their merits.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.