Contreras v. TVN Enterprises Inc
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:21-cv-09689
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Contreras v. TVN Enterprises Inc., Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice, but the settlement binds only Contreras and TVN, not absent putative class members.
Yensy Contreras and TVN Enterprises Inc. were bound by the dismissal and any settlement. Absent putative class members were not bound.
What happened
In Contreras v. TVN Enterprises Inc., Yensy Contreras and TVN Enterprises Inc. told the court they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. Contreras had brought the case individually and on behalf of other similarly situated people.
The court canceled scheduled conferences and deadlines, dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs or attorneys’ fees to either party, terminated pending motions, and closed the case. It also removed the class-related language from the caption. Because the parties had not told the court they intended to follow the required class-settlement procedure, the dismissal and settlement apply only to Contreras and TVN, not to absent putative class members.
Judge Valerie Caproni issued the order. The parties had 30 days to ask to reopen the case for good cause or to ask the court to retain authority to enforce their settlement, provided they submitted the settlement agreement and the required request within that period.
The detailed version
- Contreras v. TVN Enterprises Inc · No. 1:21-cv-09689
- Valerie Caproni
- Apr. 6, 2022
Background
Yensy Contreras sued TVN Enterprises Inc. individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. On March 31, 2022, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues.
Order
The court ordered that all previously scheduled conferences and other deadlines be canceled. 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. Any such 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.
The court also explained that, if the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—continuing authority—to enforce their settlement agreement, they had to submit the agreement and request an order expressly retaining jurisdiction within the same 30-day period.
Effect on Putative Class Members
The court directed the Clerk to remove the caption language stating that Contreras sued individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. 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 and dismissals, the dismissal and any settlement were operative only between Contreras and TVN. They did not bind absent putative class members.
Disposition
Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, including attorneys’ fees, to either party, and directed that the case be closed. The opinion does not describe the terms of the settlement agreement.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.