Abreu v. Cobian Corporation
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:22-cv-02105
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Abreu v. Cobian Corporation, Judge Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice after settlement, without binding absent putative class members.
The order directly affected Luigi Abreu and Cobian Corporation. It stated that any settlement and the dismissal did not bind absent putative class members.
What happened
In Abreu v. Cobian Corporation, 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 would receive costs or attorneys’ fees. It closed the case, while allowing the parties to seek reopening within 30 days for good cause or to ask the court to retain authority to enforce their settlement.
Judge Valerie Caproni also removed the class-action language from the caption. Because the parties had not told the court they intended to follow the required class-settlement procedures, the dismissal and any settlement applied only between Luigi Abreu and Cobian Corporation and did not bind absent putative class members.
The detailed version
- Abreu v. Cobian Corporation · No. 1:22-cv-02105
- Valerie Caproni
- Aug. 23, 2022
Background
Luigi Abreu sued Cobian Corporation individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. On August 12, 2022, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues.
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 court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate all open motions and close the case.
The parties could apply to reopen the case within 30 days. Any such application had to show good cause for keeping the case open despite the settlement. The court also stated 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.
Class Allegations
The court directed the Clerk to remove the language “individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated” from the caption. The court stated that the parties had not notified it that they intended to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), which governs certain class settlements and dismissals. As a result, the dismissal and any settlement applied only between Abreu individually and Cobian Corporation; they did not bind absent putative class members.
Disposition
Judge Valerie Caproni 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.