Ortega v. The Wine Advocate, Inc.

Background

On April 11, 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 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. The clerk was directed to terminate all open motions and close the case.

The parties could 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 and had to be filed within that period. If the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—the authority to enforce the settlement—they also had to submit the settlement agreement and request an order expressly retaining that authority within the same 30-day period.

Putative Class

The court directed the clerk to remove the language stating that Juan Ortega 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-action settlements, the dismissal and any settlement were operative only between Ortega and The Wine Advocate, Inc. They did not bind absent putative class members.

Disposition

Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, terminated the open motions, closed the case, and limited the effect of the dismissal and any settlement to the individual plaintiff and defendant.