Williams v. Guy Harvey, Inc.

Background

On February 14, 2025, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The opinion does not describe the agreement or its 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 of Court was directed to terminate all open motions and close the case.

The parties were allowed to apply to reopen the case within 30 days. Any such 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 on that basis alone.

The court also explained how the parties could ask it to retain jurisdiction—that is, continuing authority—to enforce their settlement agreement. Within the same 30-day period, they had to submit the settlement agreement under Rule 7.A of the court’s Individual Practices and request an order expressly retaining jurisdiction to enforce it.

Putative class members

The court directed the Clerk to remove the caption language stating that Williams sued individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons. Because the parties had not notified the court that they intended to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), which governs certain settlements and dismissals involving class claims, the dismissal and any settlement operate only between Williams and Guy Harvey, Inc. They do not bind absent putative class members.

Disposition

Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, including attorneys’ fees, to either party, and closed the case. The order did not approve a settlement binding absent putative class members.