Jaquez v. Uninterrupted, LLC
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:22-cv-02660
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Jaquez v. Uninterrupted, Judge Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice after settlement, without binding absent class members.
Ramon Jaquez and Uninterrupted, LLC were bound by the dismissal. Absent putative class members were not bound by the dismissal or any settlement.
What happened
Jaquez v. Uninterrupted, LLC involved an agreement in principle that the parties said resolved all issues. The court canceled scheduled conferences and deadlines and dismissed the case with prejudice, without costs or attorneys’ fees to either party.
The dismissal applied only between Ramon Jaquez and Uninterrupted, LLC. Because the parties did not notify the court that they would follow the required class-action settlement procedure, the dismissal and any settlement did not bind people who were not parties to the case but might have been included in the proposed class.
Judge Valerie Caproni directed 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; they could also ask the court to retain authority to enforce their settlement by submitting the agreement and a separate request within that period.
The detailed version
- Jaquez v. Uninterrupted, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-02660
- Valerie Caproni
- July 19, 2022
Background
On July 18, 2022, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The order does not describe the agreement’s terms.
Court’s 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 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. A request filed after 30 days or without a showing of good cause could be denied on that basis alone.
The order also allowed the parties to ask the court to retain jurisdiction—that is, continuing authority—to enforce the settlement agreement. To do so, they had to submit the agreement and request an order expressly retaining jurisdiction within the same 30-day period.
Proposed 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 notified the court that they intended to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), the dismissal and any settlement operated only between Ramon Jaquez and Uninterrupted, LLC. They did not bind absent putative class members.
Disposition
The court dismissed the case with prejudice, without costs or attorneys’ fees to either party, and closed the case. The order did not decide the underlying claims on their merits.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.