Cromitie v. The Fruitful Yield, Inc.

Background

On January 11, 2024, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The order does not describe the agreement’s terms.

Court’s Action

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

The parties could also ask the court to retain jurisdiction, meaning authority, to enforce their 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-Action Effect

The court directed 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), which governs certain class-action settlements and dismissals, the order stated that the dismissal and any settlement operated only between the individual plaintiff and defendant. They did not bind absent putative class members.

Disposition

Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs to either party, terminated the open motions, and directed that the case be closed. The order did not decide the underlying claims on their merits.