Contreras v. Bala Bangles Inc.

Background

Yensy Contreras brought the case individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated against Bala Bangles Inc. On January 5, 2022, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The opinion does not describe 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 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, and requests filed after 30 days or without a showing of good cause could be denied on that basis alone.

If the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce their settlement agreement, they had to submit the 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 stating that Contreras 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), the dismissal and any settlement were operative only between Contreras and Bala Bangles Inc. They did not bind absent putative class members.

Ruling

Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice, without costs to either party, and closed the case subject to the stated 30-day procedures for reopening it or seeking retention of jurisdiction to enforce the settlement.