Paguada v. Rimports, LLC

Background

Dilenia Paguada brought the case on behalf of herself and others similarly situated against Rimports, LLC. The parties notified the court on April 8, 2021, that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues.

Ruling

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 order allowed the parties to apply to reopen the case within 30 days. Such an application had to show good cause for keeping the case open despite the settlement, and a late application or one without a showing of good cause could be denied on that basis alone.

The court also stated that, if the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—the authority to enforce the settlement agreement—they had to submit the settlement agreement and request an order expressly retaining jurisdiction within the same 30-day period.

Effect on Putative Class Members

The court directed the clerk to remove 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 operated only between Paguada and Rimports, LLC. They did not bind absent putative class members.

Disposition

Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice and directed that it be closed, subject to the order’s 30-day provisions for seeking reopening or asking the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement.