Cruz v. Dunn Tire LLC

Background

On March 30, 2022, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The order does not state the terms of that agreement or explain the underlying claims.

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 of Court was directed to terminate all open motions and close the case.

The parties were permitted to apply to reopen the case within 30 days. Such an application had to show good cause for keeping the case open in light of the settlement. The order states that an application filed after 30 days or without a showing of good cause could be denied on that basis alone.

The order also explained that, if the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—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.

Class Allegations and Effect of the Dismissal

The court directed the Clerk to remove from the caption the language stating that Shael Cruz sued individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. 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 Cruz and Dunn Tire LLC. They did not bind absent putative class members.

Disposition

The case was dismissed with prejudice and without costs to either party. The order did not decide the underlying legal claims on their merits; it implemented the parties’ reported agreement in principle and closed the case, subject to the stated 30-day procedures.