Estevez v. Kaspersky Lab, Inc.

Background

On March 2, 2022, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the terms of the agreement.

Court’s Orders

The court canceled all previously scheduled conferences and other deadlines. It dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, including attorney fees, to either party. The clerk 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 application had to show good cause for keeping the case open in light of the parties’ agreement and had to be filed within that 30-day period. The court stated that an application filed after 30 days or without a showing of good cause could be denied on that basis alone.

The court also explained that, if the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—that is, continuing authority—to enforce their 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 clerk to remove the language “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 were operative only between the individual plaintiff and the defendant. They did not bind absent putative class members.

Disposition

Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, terminated the open motions, and closed the case. The order did not decide the merits of the underlying claims.