Karim v. Baths of Distinction, Inc.

Background

The parties notified the court on June 5, 2024, that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The opinion does not provide the agreement’s terms.

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. The Clerk was directed to terminate all open motions and close the case.

The parties could apply to reopen the case within 30 days. Such an application had to show good cause for keeping the case open in light of the parties’ settlement. A request filed after 30 days or without a showing of good cause could be denied solely on that basis.

The parties could also ask the court to retain jurisdiction, meaning authority, to enforce their settlement agreement. To do so, they had to submit the settlement agreement in accordance with Rule 7.A of the court’s individual practices and request an order expressly retaining jurisdiction, both within the same 30-day period.

Class Allegations

The court ordered the Clerk to remove the language “individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated” from the caption after Jessica Karim’s name. The parties had not notified the court that they intended to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), which governs certain proposed class-action settlements and dismissals. The court therefore stated that the dismissal and any settlement were effective only between Karim and Baths of Distinction. They did not bind absent putative class members.

Disposition

Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs to either party, directed that the case be closed, and left a 30-day procedure for seeking to reopen the case or for requesting that the court retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement.