Tavarez-Vargas v. Golf Wang Retail, Inc.

Background

Carmen Tavarez-Vargas sued Golf Wang Retail, Inc., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated. On March 29, 2022, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The order does not describe the settlement’s terms.

Court’s Order

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. A dismissal with prejudice generally ends the case and bars refiling the same claims, although this order also allowed the parties to apply to reopen the case within 30 days if they could show good cause in light of their settlement. The clerk was directed to terminate all open motions and close the case.

The court stated that any request to reopen filed after 30 days, or filed without a showing of good cause, could be denied on that basis alone. If the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—legal 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.

Class-Action Effect

The court directed 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 court stated that the dismissal and any settlement were operative only between Tavarez-Vargas and Golf Wang Retail, Inc. They did not bind absent putative class members.

Ruling

Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice, without costs to either party, and closed it, while preserving a 30-day opportunity to seek reopening for good cause and requiring additional filings if the parties wanted the court to retain authority to enforce the settlement.