Agostini v. Millennium Gem, LLC

Background

Lunique Agostini sued Millennium Gem, LLC, individually and on behalf of herself and others similarly situated. On April 11, 2025, 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 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 parties’ agreement. A request filed after 30 days or without a showing of good cause could be denied on that basis alone.

If the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—that is, continuing authority—to enforce their agreement, they had to submit the agreement and request an order expressly retaining jurisdiction within the same 30-day period.

Class-Action Effect

The court directed the clerk to remove the language “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 settlements and dismissals. As a result, the dismissal and any settlement operated only between Agostini and Millennium Gem, LLC; 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, closed the case, and limited the effect of any settlement to the individual plaintiff and defendant.