Estevez v. Unconditional Love Inc.

Background

Arturo Estevez sued Unconditional Love Inc. individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. On March 7, 2022, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The opinion does not identify the underlying claims or provide the settlement 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 were allowed 30 days to apply to reopen the case. Any such application had to show good cause for keeping the case open despite the settlement and had to be filed within that 30-day period. The court stated that a late request or one lacking a showing of good cause could be denied on that basis alone.

The court also explained that, if the parties wanted it to retain jurisdiction—the power to enforce the settlement agreement—they had to submit the settlement agreement and request an order expressly retaining jurisdiction within the same 30-day period.

Putative Class

The court ordered the clerk to remove the phrase “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-action settlements and dismissals, the dismissal and any settlement were effective only between Estevez and Unconditional Love Inc. They did not bind absent putative class members.

Disposition

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