Chalas v. Cycra Inc.
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:22-cv-04163
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Chalas v. Cycra, Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice and no costs, limiting the settlement to Ana Chalas and Cycra.
The order ended the case between Ana Chalas and Cycra Inc. and did not bind absent putative class members. It also cancelled pending deadlines and conferences and closed the case, subject to a possible application to reopen within 30 days.
What happened
In Chalas v. Cycra Inc., Ana Chalas and Cycra Inc. told the court they had reached a settlement. The opinion does not describe the claims or the settlement’s terms.
The court cancelled scheduled conferences and deadlines, dismissed the case with prejudice, and ordered that neither party would receive costs or attorneys’ fees. It also removed the language identifying Chalas as representing a putative class. The dismissal and settlement therefore apply only between Chalas and Cycra and do not bind absent putative class members.
Judge Valerie Caproni ordered the Clerk to close the case and terminate open motions. The parties could ask to reopen the case within 30 days by showing good cause, and they could ask the court to retain authority to enforce the settlement by submitting the agreement and a separate request within that period.
The detailed version
- Chalas v. Cycra Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-04163
- Valerie Caproni
- June 29, 2022
Background
The parties informed the court that they had reached a settlement agreement. The opinion does not state the underlying claims or provide the settlement’s terms.
Court’s Orders
The court cancelled 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 were permitted to 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 order states that a request filed after 30 days, or filed without a showing of good cause, could be denied solely on that basis.
The parties could also ask the court to retain jurisdiction—that is, continuing authority—to enforce the settlement agreement. To do so, they had to submit the settlement agreement under Rule 7.A of the court’s Individual Practices and request an order expressly retaining jurisdiction, both within the same 30-day period.
Putative Class
The court directed the Clerk to remove the words “individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated” from the caption. Because the parties had not told the court that they intended to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), the dismissal and any settlement were operative only between the individual plaintiff, Ana Chalas, and Cycra Inc. They did not bind absent putative class members.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.