Feliz v. Six Foods LLC
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:22-cv-03985
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Feliz v. Six Foods LLC, Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice, without costs, and without binding absent putative class members.
The order directly affected Roberta Feliz and Six Foods LLC. Any absent putative class members were not bound by the dismissal or settlement.
What happened
In Feliz v. Six Foods LLC, Roberta Feliz and Six Foods LLC told the court they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The court canceled the scheduled conferences and 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 settlement by submitting the agreement and a separate request within that period.
Judge Valerie Caproni also ordered that the class-action language be removed from the caption. Because the parties had not notified the court that they intended to follow the required class-settlement procedure, the dismissal and settlement applied only between Feliz and Six Foods and did not bind absent putative class members.
The detailed version
- Feliz v. Six Foods LLC · No. 1:22-cv-03985
- Valerie Caproni
- Sept. 21, 2022
Background
Roberta Feliz sued Six Foods LLC individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. On September 20, 2022, the parties informed the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues.
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 court allowed the parties to apply to reopen the case within 30 days. Such an 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—legal authority—to enforce the settlement agreement, they had to submit the agreement and request an order expressly retaining that authority within the same 30-day period.
Putative Class
The court ordered the caption amended to remove the language stating that Feliz sued 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 applied only between Feliz and Six Foods. 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.