Mejia v. RTIC Outdoors, LLC

Background

Jose Mejia brought the case individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated against RTIC Outdoors, LLC. On April 26, 2022, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues.

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 and had to be filed within that 30-day period. The court stated that a request filed later or without a showing of good cause could be denied on that basis alone.

If the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—authority 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.

Class-Related Limitation

The court ordered the caption amended to remove the words “individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated” after Mejia’s name. Because the parties had not notified the court that they intended to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), the dismissal and any settlement operated only between Mejia and RTIC Outdoors, LLC. They did not bind absent putative class members.

Disposition

Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice and closed it, while preserving a 30-day procedure for seeking to reopen the case or requesting that the court retain authority to enforce the settlement.