Mercer v. Provident Management Corporation

Background

On April 29, 2021, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the terms of that agreement.

Court’s Orders

The court cancelled 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. Such an application had to show good cause for keeping the case open despite the settlement, and a request filed after 30 days or without good cause could be denied on that basis alone. The order also explained that, if the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—continuing authority—to enforce their settlement, they had to submit the settlement agreement and request an order expressly retaining that authority within the same 30-day period.

Class Allegations

The court directed the Clerk to remove the caption language stating that Mercer sued “individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated.” Because the parties had not told the court that they intended to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), which governs certain class-action settlements and dismissals, the court stated that the dismissal and any settlement operated only between Mercer and Provident Management. They did not bind absent putative class members.

Disposition and Classification

Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, cancelled the scheduled proceedings, directed the case’s closure, and issued the caption and class-member provisions described above. This is a procedural order because the court disposed of the case based on the parties’ agreement rather than deciding the underlying legal claims.