Quezada v. Clear Image, Inc.

Background

The parties notified the court on May 27, 2021, that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the agreement’s terms.

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

Settlement enforcement

If the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—continuing authority—to enforce their settlement agreement, they had to submit the agreement and request an order expressly retaining jurisdiction within the same 30-day period. The opinion does not state that the court retained jurisdiction.

Putative class members

The court directed the Clerk to remove the words “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 Jose Quezada and Clear Image, Inc. They did not bind absent putative class members.

Disposition

Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, and closed it, while preserving a 30-day opportunity to seek reopening or express retention of jurisdiction under the conditions stated in the order.