Feliz v. Recreonics, Inc.
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:22-cv-03979
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Feliz v. Recreonics, Judge Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice after the parties reported an agreement in principle, without costs or binding absent class members.
The dismissal applies between Roberta Feliz and Recreonics, Inc. It does not bind absent putative class members. Either party could seek to reopen the case within 30 days by showing good cause, and the parties could request that the court retain jurisdiction to enforce their agreement within that period.
What happened
In Feliz v. Recreonics, Inc., the parties told the court they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The court canceled the scheduled conferences and other deadlines.
The court dismissed the case with prejudice and ordered that neither party pay costs or attorneys’ fees. The parties could ask to reopen the case within 30 days by showing good cause, and they could request that the court retain authority to enforce their agreement by submitting the agreement and a separate request within that period.
Judge Valerie Caproni also ordered the case caption changed to remove the language about similarly situated people. Because the parties had not told the court they intended to follow the class-settlement procedures in Rule 23(e), the dismissal and any settlement applied only between Roberta Feliz and Recreonics and did not bind absent putative class members.
The detailed version
- Feliz v. Recreonics, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-03979
- Valerie Caproni
- July 29, 2022
Background
On July 22, 2022, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The opinion does not describe the agreement’s terms.
Court’s orders
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 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’ agreement and had to be filed within that 30-day period. The court stated that a request filed later or without a showing of good cause could be denied on that basis alone.
The court also stated that, if the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—that is, continuing authority—to enforce their agreement, they had to submit the agreement and request an order expressly retaining jurisdiction within the same 30-day period.
Class allegations
The court ordered the clerk to remove from the caption the language stating that Roberta Feliz sued individually and on behalf of all 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 Feliz and Recreonics. They did not bind absent putative class members.
Disposition
The court dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, subject to the stated 30-day procedures for seeking to reopen the case or requesting retention of jurisdiction to enforce the agreement. Judge Valerie Caproni signed the order on July 29, 2022.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.