Tavarez-Vargas v. Identity Theft Guard Solutions, Inc.

Background

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 of Court was directed to terminate all open motions and close the case.

The parties were allowed to apply to reopen the case within 30 days. Any such application had to show good cause for keeping the case open despite 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.

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

Putative Class Members

The court ordered the caption changed to delete the language stating that Carmen Tavarez-Vargas sued individually and on behalf of others similarly situated. 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 Tavarez-Vargas and Identity Theft Guard Solutions, Inc. They did not bind absent putative class members.

Disposition

Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, closed the case, and limited the operation of the dismissal and any settlement to the individual plaintiff and defendant rather than absent putative class members.