Rhone v. Eeboo Corporation
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:24-cv-01116
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Rhone v. Eeboo Corporation, Judge Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice after the parties reported an agreement in principle.
The dismissal and any settlement apply only between Tonimarie Rhone and Eeboo Corporation. They do not bind absent putative class members. The parties may seek to reopen the case within 30 days for good cause or ask the court to retain authority to enforce their settlement if they make the required submissions.
What happened
Tonimarie Rhone sued Eeboo Corporation on behalf of herself and others similarly situated. The parties told the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues.
The court canceled scheduled conferences and deadlines, dismissed the case with prejudice, ordered that neither party pay costs or attorneys’ fees, terminated open motions, and closed the case. The parties could apply to reopen it within 30 days by showing good cause.
Judge Valerie Caproni also removed the class-action language from the caption. Because the parties had not said they would follow the required class-settlement procedure, the dismissal and any settlement applied only between Rhone and Eeboo Corporation and did not bind absent putative class members.
The detailed version
- Rhone v. Eeboo Corporation · No. 1:24-cv-01116
- Valerie Caproni
- May 10, 2024
Background
Tonimarie Rhone brought this case against Eeboo Corporation on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated. On May 9, 2024, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues.
Court’s Orders
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. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate all open motions and close the case.
The order allowed the parties to apply to reopen the case within 30 days. Any such application had to show good cause for keeping the case open despite the parties’ settlement. The order stated that a request filed after 30 days or without a showing of good cause could be denied on that basis alone.
The parties could also ask the court to retain authority to enforce their settlement agreement. To do so, they had to submit the agreement and request an order expressly retaining that authority within the same 30-day period.
Class Allegations
The court directed the Clerk to remove the language “individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated” from Rhone’s name in the caption. 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 were effective only between Rhone and Eeboo Corporation. They did not bind absent putative class members.
Disposition
Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs to either party, closed the case, and limited the effect of the dismissal and any settlement to Rhone and Eeboo Corporation. The order did not decide the underlying claims on their merits.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.