Cruz v. The Veggie Grill, Inc.
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:21-cv-09960
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Cruz v. The Veggie Grill, Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice, without costs, and said the settlement binds only the individual plaintiff.
The individual plaintiff and The Veggie Grill, Inc. were bound by the dismissal and any settlement between them. Absent putative class members were not bound.
What happened
In Cruz v. The Veggie Grill, Inc., the parties told the court they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues.
The court canceled all scheduled conferences and deadlines and directed the Clerk to close the case. It also removed the language referring to the plaintiff as representing other similarly situated people.
Judge Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, including attorneys’ fees, to either party. The order said the dismissal and settlement apply only between the individual plaintiff and the defendant, not to absent people who might have been part of the proposed class. The parties had 30 days to seek reopening for good cause or ask the court to retain authority to enforce their settlement.
The detailed version
- Cruz v. The Veggie Grill, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-09960
- Valerie Caproni
- Apr. 6, 2022
Background
On March 31, 2022, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The opinion does not describe the agreement’s terms.
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 of Court was directed to terminate all open motions and close the case.
The parties could apply to reopen the case within 30 days, but the application had to show good cause for keeping the case open in light of the settlement. The order 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—that is, continuing 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.
Proposed Class
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 told the court that they intended to follow Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), the dismissal and any settlement operated only between the individual plaintiff and the defendant. They did not bind absent putative class members.
Judge
Judge Valerie Caproni entered the order on April 6, 2022.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.