Toro v. Hyperfly, Inc.

Background

The parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the agreement’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 was directed to terminate all open motions and close the case.

The parties may apply to reopen the case within 30 days of the order. Such an application must show good cause for keeping the case open despite the parties’ settlement. The court stated that a request filed after 30 days, or without a showing of good cause, may be denied solely on that basis.

If the parties want the court to retain jurisdiction—that is, continuing authority—to enforce their settlement agreement, they must, within the same 30-day period, submit the settlement agreement under Rule 7.A of the court’s Individual Practices and ask the court to issue an order expressly retaining jurisdiction.

Effect on Putative Class Members

The court ordered the clerk to remove the language “individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated” from the case caption. 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 are operative only between Luis Toro and Hyperfly, Inc. They do not bind absent putative class members.

Ruling

Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice, without costs to either party, closed the case, and limited the effect of any settlement to the individual plaintiff and defendant.