Chalas v. Super73, Inc.
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:22-cv-04201
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Chalas v. Super73, Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice, without costs, and said the settlement did not bind absent putative class members.
The order directly affected Ana Chalas and Super73, Inc. Their dismissal and any settlement applied only between them and did not bind absent putative class members.
What happened
Ana Chalas sued Super73, Inc., individually and on behalf of similarly situated people. The parties told the court they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues.
The court canceled scheduled conferences and deadlines, dismissed the case with prejudice, ordered that neither party pay costs or attorneys’ fees, terminated pending motions, and closed the case. The parties could ask to reopen it within 30 days by showing good cause.
Judge Valerie Caproni also removed the class-related language from the caption. Because the parties had not told the court they intended to follow the federal rule governing class settlements, the dismissal and any settlement applied only between Chalas and Super73 and did not bind absent putative class members.
The detailed version
- Chalas v. Super73, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-04201
- Valerie Caproni
- Sept. 14, 2022
Background
The parties notified the court on September 12, 2022, that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The opinion 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 of Court was directed to terminate all open motions and close the case.
The parties were allowed 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 order also stated that, if the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce their settlement agreement, they had to submit the agreement and request an order expressly retaining that jurisdiction within the same 30-day period.
Putative class members
The court directed the Clerk to remove the language “individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated” from the caption. Because the parties had not notified the court that they intended to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), the dismissal and any settlement were operative only between Ana Chalas and Super73, Inc. They did not bind absent putative class members.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.