Agostini v. Concourse Animal Hospital, P.C.

Background

Lunique Agostini brought the case against Concourse Animal Hospital, P.C. on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated. On November 7, 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. The clerk was directed to terminate all open motions and close the case.

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

If the parties want the court to retain jurisdiction—that is, continuing authority—to enforce their settlement agreement, they must submit the agreement under Rule 7.A of the court’s Individual Practices and request an order expressly retaining that authority, also within 30 days.

Putative Class Members

The court directed the clerk to remove the words “individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated” from the caption. 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 therefore stated that the dismissal and any settlement operate only between Agostini and Concourse Animal Hospital, P.C. They do not bind absent putative class members.

Disposition

The court dismissed the case with prejudice, without costs, and closed the case, subject to the stated 30-day procedures for reopening the case or requesting retained authority to enforce the settlement.