Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 28, 2022

Loadholt v. YMI Jeanswear, Inc.

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:22-cv-04582
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Loadholt v. YMI Jeanswear, Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice, without costs, and without binding absent putative class members.

Who this affects

Christopher Loadholt and YMI Jeanswear, Inc.; any settlement and the dismissal do not bind absent putative class members.

What happened

In Loadholt v. YMI Jeanswear, the parties told the court they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The court canceled scheduled conferences and deadlines.

The court dismissed the case with prejudice and ordered that neither party pay costs or attorneys’ fees. It closed the case and amended the caption to remove language stating that Christopher Loadholt sued for a proposed class. The dismissal and any settlement apply only to Loadholt and YMI Jeanswear and do not bind absent putative class members because the parties did not notify the court that they would follow the required class-settlement procedure.

Judge Valerie Caproni allowed the parties 30 days to ask to reopen the case by showing good cause. Within that same period, they could also submit their settlement agreement and ask the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce it.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Loadholt v. YMI Jeanswear, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-04582
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
July 28, 2022

Background

On July 27, 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. The order states that such an application had to show good cause for keeping the case open in light of the settlement, and that a late application or one lacking a showing of good cause could be denied on that basis alone.

The parties could also ask the court to retain jurisdiction—that is, continuing authority over the case—to enforce their settlement agreement. To do so, they had to submit the agreement and a request for continued jurisdiction within the same 30-day period.

Putative Class

The court directed the clerk to remove from the caption the language stating that Christopher Loadholt sued individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. Because the parties had not told the court that they intended to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), the order states that the dismissal and any settlement operate only between Loadholt and YMI Jeanswear. They do not bind absent putative class members.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.