Toro v. Glasswing, LLC
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:23-cv-03976
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Toro v. Glasswing, Judge Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice after settlement, without costs, while preserving absent class members’ claims.
Luis Toro and Glasswing, LLC were directly affected by the dismissal and any settlement. Absent putative class members were not bound by the dismissal or settlement.
What happened
In Toro v. Glasswing, LLC, the parties told the court they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The case was brought by Luis Toro on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, but the opinion does not describe the agreement’s terms.
The court canceled all scheduled conferences and deadlines. It also directed the clerk to terminate open motions, close the case, and remove the language referring to similarly situated people from the caption.
Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, including attorneys’ fees, to either party. The parties could ask to reopen the case within 30 days by showing good cause, and they could ask the court to retain authority to enforce their agreement by submitting the agreement and a request within that period. Because the parties did not notify the court that they intended to follow the federal class-settlement procedure, the dismissal and any settlement applied only to Toro and Glasswing and did not bind absent putative class members.
The detailed version
- Toro v. Glasswing, LLC · No. 1:23-cv-03976
- Valerie Caproni
- Oct. 12, 2023
Background
Luis Toro brought this case against Glasswing, LLC on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated. On October 10, 2023, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The opinion does not state the agreement’s terms.
Court’s action
The court canceled all previously scheduled conferences and other deadlines. It directed the clerk to terminate all open motions and close the case.
The court dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, including attorneys’ fees, to either party. The parties could apply to reopen the case within 30 days, but any such application had to show good cause for keeping the case open despite the settlement. The court stated that a request filed after 30 days or without a showing of good cause could be denied solely for that reason.
The parties could also ask the court to retain jurisdiction, meaning continuing authority, to enforce their settlement agreement. To do so, they had to submit the agreement and a request for an order expressly retaining jurisdiction within the same 30-day period.
Class allegations and effect of dismissal
The court directed the clerk to remove the language “individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated” from Toro’s name in the caption. Because the parties did not notify the court that they intended to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), which governs certain class settlements and dismissals, the court stated that the dismissal and any settlement applied only between Toro and Glasswing. They did not bind absent putative class members.
Ruling
Judge Valerie Caproni ordered the case dismissed with prejudice and without costs to either party, subject to the limited 30-day procedures for seeking to reopen the case or requesting that the court retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.