Jimenez v. Aroma360 LLC

Background

On October 20, 2022, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The order does not state the agreement’s terms.

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 permitted to apply to reopen the case within 30 days. Any such application had to show good cause for keeping the case open in light of the settlement. The court stated that a request filed after 30 days, or without a showing of good cause, could be denied solely on that basis.

The court also explained that, if the parties wanted it to retain authority to enforce the settlement agreement, they had to submit the agreement and request an order expressly retaining that authority within the same 30-day period.

Putative Class

The court ordered 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), the dismissal and any settlement operated only between Vanessa Jimenez and Aroma360 LLC. They did not bind absent putative class members.

Disposition

Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice, canceled the scheduled proceedings and deadlines, directed that the case be closed, and limited the effect of the dismissal and settlement to the individual parties.