Danso v. Greenleaf Steel Rule Die Corporation

Background

Charity Danso brought this case against Greenleaf Steel Rule Die Corporation on behalf of herself and others similarly situated. On March 14, 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 of Court was directed to terminate all open motions and close the case.

The parties may apply to reopen the case within 30 days by showing good cause for keeping it open despite their settlement. A request filed after 30 days, or without a showing of good cause, may be denied solely on that basis.

The court also explained that, if the parties want the court to retain jurisdiction—that is, continuing authority—to enforce their settlement agreement, they must submit the 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 phrase “individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated” from the caption. Because the parties did not notify the court that they intended to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), which governs certain class-action settlements and dismissals, the dismissal and any settlement operate only between Danso and Greenleaf. They do not bind absent putative class members.

Classification

This is a procedural order. The court dismissed the case following the parties’ reported agreement in principle and did not decide the underlying claims on their merits.