Liz v. Tucketts, Inc.

Background

Pedro Liz brought the case against Tucketts, Inc. on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the terms of the parties’ agreement. On May 5, 2024, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues.

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 permitted to 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 court also stated that, if the parties wanted the court to retain authority to enforce the settlement agreement, they had to submit the agreement and request an order expressly retaining that authority within the same 30-day period.

Putative 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-action settlements and dismissals, the dismissal and any settlement were effective only between Pedro Liz and Tucketts, Inc. They did not bind absent putative class members.

Disposition

The case was dismissed with prejudice and without costs, and the case was closed, subject to the stated 30-day procedures for seeking to reopen it or asking the court to retain authority to enforce the settlement.