McDonald v. H & M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P.

Background

Terrill McDonald and Mariel Baez sued H & M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P. and H&M Fashion USA Inc. individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. The opinion states that, on June 12, 2025, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement on all issues. It does not provide the agreement’s 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 may apply to reopen the case within 30 days, but the application must show good cause for keeping the case open in light of the settlement. The court warned that an application filed after 30 days or without a showing of good cause may be denied on that basis alone.

The parties may also ask the court to retain jurisdiction, meaning authority, to enforce their settlement agreement. To do so, they must submit the agreement and request an order expressly retaining that authority within the same 30-day period.

Putative Class Members

The court directed the Clerk to remove the phrase “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), which governs certain class settlements and dismissals, the dismissal and any settlement operate only between the individual plaintiffs and the defendants. They do not bind absent putative class members.

Classification

This is a procedural order because the court closed the case based on the parties’ agreement and addressed settlement and class-procedure issues without deciding the underlying claims.