Young v. Icemule Company, Inc.

Background

The caption identified Leshawn Young as a plaintiff proceeding on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, and identified Icemule Company, Inc. as the defendant. On February 17, 2025, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues.

Court’s Orders

The court ordered that all previously scheduled conferences and other deadlines were canceled. 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. Any such application had to show good cause for keeping the case open in light of the settlement. The court also stated that, if the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—meaning continuing 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.

The court further directed the clerk to remove the language “individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated” from Young’s name in 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 settlements involving class claims, the dismissal and any settlement applied only between Young and Icemule. They did not bind absent putative class members.

Disposition

Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice, without costs or attorneys’ fees to either party, and directed that the case be closed. The order did not bind absent putative class members.