Senior v. Augustana University

Background

On October 16, 2023, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The opinion does not state the underlying claims or provide the terms of the agreement.

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 were allowed to apply to reopen the case within 30 days. Such an application had to show good cause for keeping the case open despite the settlement. The order warned that a request filed after 30 days or without a showing of good cause could be denied on that basis alone.

The court also explained that, if the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—meaning 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 treatment

The court ordered the Clerk to remove the phrase “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 applied only between the individual plaintiff, Milagros Senior, and Augustana University. They did not bind absent putative class members.

Disposition and classification

This was a procedural dismissal following the parties’ reported agreement in principle. The court did not decide the underlying legal claims. The case was dismissed with prejudice, and the court closed it subject to the order’s 30-day provisions for seeking reopening or asking the court to retain authority to enforce the settlement.