Stevez v. Adventhealth University, Inc.

Background

Arturo Stevez brought this case on behalf of himself and other persons described as similarly situated. On January 20, 2022, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues.

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 were allowed to apply within 30 days to reopen the case. Such an application had to show good cause for keeping the case open in light of the settlement. The court also stated that, 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 that same 30-day period.

The court directed the clerk to remove the language “individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated” from the caption after Stevez’s name. Because the parties had not told the court that they intended to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), the court stated that the dismissal and any settlement were effective only between Arturo Stevez and Adventhealth University, Inc. They did not bind absent putative class members.

Disposition and Classification

Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs and closed the case, subject to the stated 30-day procedures for seeking to reopen it or asking the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement. The order resolved the case through a settlement-related dismissal rather than deciding the underlying claims, so this is a procedural order.