Tavarez-Vargas v. The Sock Drawer, Incorporated

Background

Carmen Tavarez-Vargas sued The Sock Drawer, Incorporated, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated. On May 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 was directed to terminate all open motions and close the case.

The parties were allowed to apply within 30 days to reopen the case. Such an application had to show good cause for keeping the case open in light of the parties’ settlement. The court stated that it could deny an application filed after 30 days or without a showing of good cause solely on that basis.

If the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—the court’s 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 dismissal and any settlement were operative only between Tavarez-Vargas and The Sock Drawer, Incorporated. They did not bind absent putative class members.

Disposition

Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice, canceled the scheduled proceedings and deadlines, terminated the open motions, and directed that the case be closed.