Young v. The Brooklyn Academy Of Music, Inc.
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:22-cv-01723
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Young v. The Brooklyn Academy of Music, Judge Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice after an agreement in principle, without costs, without binding putative class members.
Lawrence Young and The Brooklyn Academy of Music, Inc. were directly affected by the dismissal and any settlement. Absent putative class members were not bound by the dismissal or settlement.
What happened
In Young v. The Brooklyn Academy of Music, the parties told the court they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The case was brought by Lawrence Young for himself and people allegedly in a similar situation.
The court canceled scheduled conferences and deadlines, dismissed the case with prejudice, ordered that neither side pay costs or attorney fees, terminated open motions, and closed the case. 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 agreement by submitting the agreement and a request within that period.
Judge Valerie Caproni ordered the caption changed to remove the language about similarly situated people. Because the parties had not told the court they intended to follow the rule governing class settlements, the dismissal and any settlement applied only between Young and the Academy and did not bind absent people who might have been members of the proposed class.
The detailed version
- Young v. The Brooklyn Academy Of Music, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-01723
- Valerie Caproni
- July 26, 2022
Background
The case was brought by Lawrence Young on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated against The Brooklyn Academy of Music, Inc. On July 25, 2022, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues.
Court’s Order
The court canceled all previously scheduled conferences and other deadlines. It dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, including attorney fees, to either party. The court directed the Clerk of Court 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 parties’ 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 it to retain jurisdiction—that is, 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 ordered the caption amended to remove the language stating that Young was proceeding individually and on behalf of 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 Young and the defendant. They did not bind absent putative class members.
The order resolved the case based on the parties’ agreement and 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.