Valencia v. S&S Worldwide, Inc.

Background

Justin Valencia brought the case on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated against S&S Worldwide, Inc. On November 15, 2024, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The opinion does not state the agreement’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 may apply to reopen the case within 30 days of the order. The application must show good cause for keeping the case open in light of the parties’ settlement. The court stated that 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, within the same 30-day period, submit the agreement under the court’s Individual Practices and request an order expressly retaining jurisdiction to enforce it.

Class Allegations

The clerk was directed to remove the language “individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated” from the caption. Because the parties did not notify 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 are operative only between Valencia and S&S Worldwide, Inc. They do not bind absent putative class members.

Disposition

The court dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, terminated open motions, and closed the case. The order did not decide the underlying claims on their merits.