Reid v. Lamas Beauty 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 describe the underlying claims or the settlement’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 could apply within 30 days to reopen the case. Such an application had to show good cause for keeping the case open in light of the settlement, and a request filed after 30 days or without a showing of good cause could be denied on that basis alone.

If the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce their settlement agreement, they also had to submit the agreement and request an order expressly retaining jurisdiction within the same 30-day period.

Proposed Class

The court directed 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), which governs certain class settlements and dismissals, the dismissal and any settlement applied only between Reid and Lamas Beauty Inc. They did not bind absent members of the proposed class.

Disposition

Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice and closed it, subject to the stated 30-day procedures for reopening the case or requesting that the court retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement.