Williams v. Helix Nutrition LLC

Background

Milton Williams brought the case on behalf of himself and other similarly situated people against Helix Nutrition LLC. On April 8, 2021, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The opinion does not state the terms of that agreement.

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 could apply to reopen the case within 30 days, but such an application had to show good cause for keeping the case open in light of the settlement. A request filed after 30 days, or filed without a showing of good cause, could be denied on that basis alone.

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

Effect on the Proposed Class

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), which governs certain class settlements and dismissals, the dismissal and any settlement were operative only between Williams and Helix. They did not bind absent putative class members.

Disposition

Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice, without costs to either party, and closed the case, while allowing the parties 30 days to seek reopening or court retention of authority to enforce the settlement under the conditions stated in the order.