Toro v. GFM Licensing Group, LLC

Background

On April 27, 2023, 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.

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

The parties could also ask the court to retain jurisdiction—the court’s authority to enforce the settlement agreement. To do so, they had to submit the settlement agreement and request an order expressly retaining jurisdiction within the same 30-day period.

Class allegations

The court directed the Clerk to remove the language “individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated” from Luis Toro’s name in 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 operated only between Toro and GFM Licensing Group, LLC. They did not bind absent putative class members.

Disposition

The court dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs to either party, terminated the open motions, and closed the case. The order addressed the settlement and class-procedure consequences rather than deciding the underlying claims on their merits.