Velazquez v. The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:22-cv-06520
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Velazquez v. The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, Judge Caproni ordered that the case would be dismissed without prejudice if Velazquez missed the amendment deadline.
Bryan Velazquez and The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC; the order also concerns the people Velazquez sought to represent.
What happened
In Velazquez v. The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, the court had previously ordered Bryan Velazquez to ask for permission to file an amended complaint by November 15, 2022, or face dismissal for lack of standing.
The parties told the court they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues and asked the court to keep jurisdiction for 60 days while they prepared settlement documents. The court said the existing complaint did not adequately allege standing, so it did not currently have jurisdiction over the dispute.
Judge Valerie Caproni ordered that the case would be dismissed without prejudice if Velazquez did not move for permission to file an amended complaint by the November 15 deadline. The order did not itself state that the case was dismissed.
The detailed version
- Velazquez v. The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-06520
- Valerie Caproni
- Nov. 10, 2022
Background
Bryan Velazquez brought this case on behalf of himself and others similarly situated against The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC. On November 3, 2022, the court ordered Velazquez to move for permission to file an amended complaint by November 15, 2022. The court stated that the action would be dismissed for lack of standing if he did not do so.
Parties’ Notice and Jurisdiction
On November 8, 2022, Velazquez notified the court that the parties had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. He asked the court to retain jurisdiction for 60 days while the parties prepared settlement documents. The court stated that the complaint before it did not adequately allege standing. Standing is the requirement that a plaintiff show a sufficient personal connection to the dispute to invoke the court’s authority. Because standing was not adequately alleged, the court said it did not currently have jurisdiction over the dispute.
Order
The court ordered that, if Velazquez failed to move for permission to file an amended complaint before the previously set November 15, 2022 deadline, the case would be dismissed without prejudice. The opinion does not state that the case was dismissed on November 10; it sets a condition under which dismissal would occur. Judge Valerie Caproni signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.