Reid v. Mister Softee, Inc.

Background

Nad re ca Reid sued Mister Softee, Inc. individually and as a representative of a proposed class of similarly situated people. On January 3, 2024, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues.

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 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 settlement. The order states that a request filed after 30 days, or filed without a showing of good cause, may be denied on that basis alone.

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

Class-Action Effect

The court directed the Clerk to remove the language stating that Reid sued “individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated” from the case caption. The parties had not notified the court that they intended to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), which governs certain class-action settlements and dismissals. As a result, the dismissal and any settlement are operative only between Reid and Mister Softee, Inc.; they do not bind absent putative class members.

Disposition

Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice and directed that it be closed, while allowing a possible application to reopen within 30 days under the conditions stated in the order.