Quezada v. ChowNow, Inc.

Background

On September 1, 2022, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The opinion does not provide the settlement’s terms.

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

The court stated that, within 30 days, the parties could apply to reopen the case. The application had to show good cause for holding the case open in light of the 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—that is, authority—to enforce the settlement agreement, they had to submit the agreement and a request for an order expressly retaining jurisdiction within the same 30-day period.

Effect on Putative Class Members

The court ordered that the case caption be amended to remove the language stating that Jose Quezada was proceeding individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. Because the parties did not notify the court that they intended to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), the dismissal and any settlement were operative only between Quezada and ChowNow, 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, and directed that the case be closed. The order did not decide the underlying claims on their merits; it resolved the case based on the parties’ reported settlement.