Espinal v. Sheplers, Inc.

Background

Frangie Espinal brought the case on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated. On August 19, 2024, the parties notified the court 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 were permitted to apply to reopen the case within 30 days of the order. Any such application had to show good cause for keeping the case open in light of the settlement. The court stated that a request filed after 30 days or without a showing of good cause could be denied on that basis alone.

The court also explained that, if the parties wanted it to retain jurisdiction—the court’s authority—to enforce the settlement agreement, they had to submit the agreement and request an order expressly retaining that authority within the same 30-day period.

Class-Action Effect

The court ordered 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), which governs certain class-action settlements and dismissals, the court stated that the dismissal and any settlement operated only between Espinal and Sheplers, Inc. They did not bind absent putative class members.

Disposition

Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, directed that the case be closed, and limited the operation of the dismissal and settlement to the individual plaintiff and defendant rather than absent putative class members.