Aktar v. Equifax Information Services, LLC
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:22-cv-01449
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Aktar v. Equifax, Judge Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice after agreements with two defendants left no defendants, without costs or attorneys’ fees.
Fouzia Aktar and the four defendants named in the case: JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.; Equifax Information Services, LLC; Experian Information Solutions, Inc.; and TransUnion, LLC.
What happened
In Aktar v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, Fouzia Aktar sued JPMorgan Chase Bank, Equifax Information Services, Experian Information Solutions, and TransUnion. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims.
The parties told the court that Aktar and JPMorgan Chase had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues, and that Aktar and Experian had reached a similar agreement. The court stated that no defendants remained.
Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, including attorneys’ fees, and directed the Clerk to close it. The parties could ask to reopen the case within 30 days by showing good cause; they could also ask the court to retain authority to enforce their settlement agreement by filing the agreement and a separate request within that period.
The detailed version
- Aktar v. Equifax Information Services, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-01449
- Valerie Caproni
- Apr. 27, 2022
Background
Fouzia Aktar was the plaintiff. The defendants named in the caption were JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.; Equifax Information Services, LLC; Experian Information Solutions, Inc.; and TransUnion, LLC. The opinion does not state the claims’ factual or legal basis.
On April 25, 2022, the parties notified the court that Aktar and JPMorgan Chase had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. On April 26, 2022, they notified the court that Aktar and Experian had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The court stated that no defendants remained in the case.
Ruling
Judge Valerie Caproni ordered that the case be dismissed with prejudice and without costs, including attorneys’ fees, to any party. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate all open motions and close the case.
The order allowed the parties 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 parties’ settlement, and a request filed after 30 days or without a showing of good cause could be denied on that basis alone. The order also stated that, if the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—legal 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.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.