Adams v. Deva Concepts, LLC
- Gregory Woods
- 1:20-cv-09717
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Adams v. Deva Concepts, LLC, Judge Woods granted Deva’s motion to dismiss Katherine Robaina’s claims because a class settlement had released them.
Katherine Robaina’s claims against Deva Concepts, LLC were dismissed, and the clerk was directed to remove her from the case caption.
What happened
Katherine Robaina pursued claims against Deva Concepts, LLC in Adams v. Deva Concepts, LLC. Deva moved to dismiss her claims, arguing that she was part of a class settlement that released claims related to the products involved in this case.
Robaina did not argue that her claims fell outside the settlement or that she was not a settlement-class member. Instead, she asked the court to wait for the result of her expected appeal concerning her unsuccessful attempt to exclude herself from the class action. The Second Circuit later upheld the ruling that she was not excused from missing the deadline to opt out.
Because Robaina did not exclude herself from the class action, the settlement released her claims in this case. Judge Woods granted Deva’s motion to dismiss any claims brought by Robaina and directed the clerk to remove her from the case caption.
The detailed version
- Adams v. Deva Concepts, LLC · No. 1:20-cv-09717
- Gregory Woods
- May 24, 2023
Background
Deva Concepts, LLC moved to dismiss the claims pursued by Katherine Robaina in this case. Deva argued that Robaina’s claims had been released because she did not seek exclusion from a certified class action involving Deva products.
The earlier class-action settlement released claims by settlement-class members against Deva that related in any manner to the subject matter of that litigation, including the design, manufacture, distribution, sale, and use of the products involved. Robaina did not argue that her claims were outside the release or that she was not covered by the settlement class.
Prior Proceedings
Robaina asked the court to defer ruling on Deva’s motion while she pursued an anticipated appeal of the court’s decision denying her request to exclude her claims from the class action. The court deferred its ruling. The Second Circuit later upheld the conclusion that Robaina was not excused from failing to seek exclusion on time, and the appellate mandate issued on May 19, 2023.
Ruling
The court concluded that, because Robaina did not exclude herself from the class action, the settlement released her claims in this case. The court therefore granted Deva’s motion to dismiss any claims by Robaina. It also directed the clerk to remove Katherine Robaina from the case caption.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.