Maddy v. The Dress Outlet, Inc.
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:22-cv-03565
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Maddy v. The Dress Outlet, Judge Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice after settlement, without costs, while stating the settlement did not bind absent putative class members.
The order ended Veronica Maddy’s individual case against The Dress Outlet, Inc. It did not bind absent putative class members, and it imposed no costs or attorney fees on either party.
What happened
In Maddy v. The Dress Outlet, Inc., Veronica Maddy sued The Dress Outlet, Inc. on behalf of herself and others similarly situated. The parties told the court they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues.
The court canceled all scheduled conferences and deadlines and directed the Clerk to close the case. The court also removed the language referring to Maddy as representing others similarly situated because the parties had not notified the court that they intended to follow the procedure for approving class settlements.
Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, including attorney fees, to either party. The order stated that the dismissal and any settlement applied only between Maddy and The Dress Outlet and did not bind absent putative class members. The parties could seek to reopen the case within 30 days for good cause, and they could ask the court to retain authority to enforce their settlement by submitting the agreement and a request within that period.
The detailed version
- Maddy v. The Dress Outlet, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-03565
- Valerie Caproni
- Aug. 26, 2022
Background
Veronica Maddy brought this case against The Dress Outlet, Inc. on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated. On August 26, 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 attorney fees, to either party. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate all open motions and close the case.
The order allowed the parties 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 settlement. The parties also had 30 days to submit their settlement agreement and request that the court expressly retain jurisdiction—that is, authority—to enforce the agreement.
Class Allegations
The court directed the Clerk to amend the caption by deleting the language stating that Maddy sued 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 court approval of class settlements and dismissals, the dismissal and any settlement applied only between Maddy and The Dress Outlet. They did not bind absent putative class members.
Disposition
Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, including attorney fees, to either party, and directed that the case be closed. 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.