Sumlin v. Hawksmoor Restaurant Group, Inc.

Background

Dennis Sumlin brought the case against Hawksmoor Restaurant Group, Inc., on behalf of himself and others similarly situated. On May 15, 2025, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues.

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 of Court 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 parties’ settlement. A request filed after 30 days, or without a showing of good cause, could be denied on that basis alone.

The court also addressed possible enforcement of the settlement. If the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—that is, continuing authority—to enforce their settlement agreement, they had to submit the agreement under Rule 7.A of the court’s Individual Practices and request an order expressly retaining that authority within the same 30-day period.

Putative Class

The court ordered the Clerk to delete the language “individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated” from the caption. Because the parties had not notified the court that they intended to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), the dismissal and any settlement were operative only between Sumlin and Hawksmoor. They did not bind absent putative class members.

Disposition

Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs to either party, directed that the case be closed, and limited the effect of the dismissal and any settlement to the individual plaintiff and defendant.