Young v. U.S. Money Reserve, Inc.
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:22-cv-02098
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Young v. U.S. Money Reserve, Judge Caproni dismissed Young’s claims with prejudice after the parties reported a settlement in principle.
Lawrence Young and U.S. Money Reserve, Inc.; Young’s claims were dismissed with prejudice, the case was closed, and the parties received a 30-day opportunity to seek reopening or court enforcement of their settlement.
What happened
In Young v. U.S. Money Reserve, Inc., Lawrence Young and U.S. Money Reserve reported that they had reached a settlement in principle and asked the court to dismiss the case.
The court dismissed Young’s claims against U.S. Money Reserve with prejudice and directed the clerk to close the case and terminate all open motions. The court also removed class-action language from the case caption.
Judge Valerie Caproni allowed the parties to apply to reopen the case within 30 days if they showed good cause. The court said they could also ask it to retain authority to enforce the settlement by submitting the agreement and a separate request within that period.
The detailed version
- Young v. U.S. Money Reserve, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-02098
- Valerie Caproni
- June 30, 2022
Background
Lawrence Young sued U.S. Money Reserve, Inc. Young’s lawyer notified the court, with the defendant’s consent, that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The parties requested dismissal with prejudice and asked that pending deadlines be postponed.
Ruling
The court granted the application and ordered that Young’s claims against U.S. Money Reserve, Inc. be dismissed with prejudice, meaning the claims were dismissed in a way that generally bars refiling them. The court directed the clerk to terminate all open motions and close the case. It also directed the clerk to remove the words “on behalf of all others similarly situated” from the caption after Young’s name.
The court allowed the parties to apply to reopen the case within 30 days of the order. Any such application had to show good cause for keeping the case open in light of the settlement, and the court warned that a late application or one without good cause could be denied on that basis alone. If the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—authority to enforce the settlement agreement—they had to submit the agreement and request an order expressly retaining that authority within the same 30-day period.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.