Yan Luis v. Vena Wellness LLC

Background

On March 6, 2024, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The opinion does not state the agreement’s terms.

Order

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

Settlement Enforcement

If the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—meaning authority to enforce the settlement agreement—they had to submit the settlement agreement under Rule 7.A of the court’s Individual Practices and request an order expressly retaining that jurisdiction, both within the same 30-day period.

Putative Class Allegations

The court directed the Clerk to amend the caption by deleting the language “individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated” after the individual plaintiff’s name. 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 Kevin Yan Luis and Vena Wellness LLC. They did not bind absent putative class members.

Disposition

Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, closed the case, and terminated the open motions, subject to the stated 30-day procedures for reopening the case or requesting retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement.