Sosa v. Clampart, LLC

Background

Yony Sosa brought the case on behalf of himself and other similarly situated people against Clampart, LLC. On February 2, 2022, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The opinion does not provide the agreement’s terms.

Court’s action

The court canceled all previously scheduled conferences and other deadlines. It dismissed the case with prejudice and ordered that neither party would recover costs, including attorneys’ fees, from the other. The clerk was directed to terminate all open motions and close the case.

The court allowed the parties to apply to reopen the case within 30 days. Any such application had to show good cause for keeping the case open despite the parties’ settlement. The court also stated that, if the parties wanted it to retain jurisdiction—the authority to oversee enforcement—to enforce the settlement agreement, they had to submit the agreement and request an order expressly retaining jurisdiction within that same 30-day period.

Class allegations

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), which governs certain class settlements and dismissals, the dismissal and any settlement applied only between Sosa and Clampart, LLC. They did not bind absent putative class members.

Disposition

Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice without costs, terminated the open motions, and closed the case, while allowing a timely application to reopen if the parties could show good cause.