Paguada v. Bowman Beauty & Barber Supply, Inc.

Background

Josue Paguada sued Bowman Beauty & Barber Supply, Inc., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated. The parties notified the court on July 22, 2022, 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 could apply to reopen the case within 30 days if they showed good cause for keeping it open despite their settlement. A request filed after 30 days or without a showing of good cause could be denied on that basis alone.

The court also stated that, if the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—the authority to enforce their settlement agreement—they had to submit the agreement and request an order expressly retaining jurisdiction 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 told the court they intended to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), the dismissal and any settlement operated only between Paguada and Bowman Beauty. They did not bind absent putative class members.

Disposition

Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, directed that the case be closed, and limited the effect of any settlement to the individual plaintiff and defendant. The order did not decide the underlying claims on their merits.