Gonzalez v. Lilly Girl, Inc.

Background

On January 18, 2024, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The opinion does not provide the agreement’s terms.

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 was directed to terminate all open motions and close the case.

The parties were allowed to apply to reopen the case within 30 days. Any such application had to show good cause for keeping the case open in light of the settlement. The order states that a request filed after 30 days, or without a showing of good cause, could be denied solely for that reason.

The court also explained that the parties could ask it to retain jurisdiction to enforce their settlement agreement. To do so, they had to submit the settlement agreement under Rule 7.A of the court’s Individual Practices and request an order expressly retaining jurisdiction, both within the same 30-day period.

Class Allegations

The court directed the clerk to remove the words “individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated” from Gonzalez’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), the dismissal and any settlement were operative only between Gonzalez and Lilly Girl. They did not bind absent putative class members.

Disposition

Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, directed that the case be closed, and stated that the settlement did not bind absent putative class members.