Jackson v. Environmental Laboratories, Inc.

Background

On September 3, 2024, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the settlement’s terms.

Court’s Order

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 of the order. Any application had to show good cause for keeping the case open despite the settlement. The order states that a request filed after 30 days or without a showing of good cause could be denied solely on that basis.

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

Class Allegations

The clerk was directed to remove from the caption the language stating that the plaintiff sued individually and on behalf of others similarly situated. Because the parties had not told the court that they intended to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), which governs court review of certain class settlements and dismissals, the court stated that the dismissal and any settlement would operate only between the individual plaintiff and the defendant. They would not bind absent putative class members.

Disposition

Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice, without costs to either party, and directed that the case be closed. The order did not decide the underlying claims on their merits.