Hernandez v. BluGlacier, LLC
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:23-cv-08414
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Hernandez v. BluGlacier, Judge Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice after settlement, without binding absent putative class members.
Marlelis Hernandez and BluGlacier, LLC are bound by the case’s dismissal and any settlement between them. Absent putative class members are not bound.
What happened
Marlelis Hernandez sued BluGlacier, LLC, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated. The parties told the court they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues.
The court canceled the scheduled conferences and deadlines, dismissed the case with prejudice, and ordered that neither party receive costs or attorneys’ fees. It also closed the case and removed the class-action language from the caption. The dismissal and any settlement apply only to Hernandez and BluGlacier; they do not bind absent putative class members because the parties had not notified the court that they intended to follow Rule 23(e).
Judge Valerie Caproni allowed the parties 30 days to seek reopening for good cause or to ask the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce their settlement agreement, subject to the order’s filing requirements.
The detailed version
- Hernandez v. BluGlacier, LLC · No. 1:23-cv-08414
- Valerie Caproni
- Oct. 27, 2023
Background
Marlelis Hernandez brought this case individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated against BluGlacier, LLC. On October 26, 2023, the parties informed the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues.
Ruling
The court ordered that all previously scheduled conferences and other deadlines be canceled. It dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, including attorneys’ fees, to either party. The Clerk was directed to terminate all open motions and close the case.
The parties were permitted to apply within 30 days to reopen the case. Any such application had to show good cause for keeping the case open in light of the settlement. The court also stated that, if the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement, they had to submit the agreement and request an order expressly retaining jurisdiction within the same 30-day period.
Effect on 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 applied only between Hernandez and BluGlacier. 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.