Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 28, 2022

Young v. Tacori Enterprises

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:21-cv-09144
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Young v. Tacori Enterprises, Judge Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice after an agreement in principle, without binding absent putative class members.

Who this affects

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

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

Case
Young v. Tacori Enterprises · No. 1:21-cv-09144
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
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.

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.