Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Arthur L. Simms filed a putative class action complaint against Imperial Woodpecker, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and other unnamed defendants in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The case was assigned docket number 2:25-cv-09198-AB-SK and proceeded before the Honorable André Birotte Jr. The specific factual allegations underlying the complaint and the legal theories asserted are not detailed in the dismissal order, which is a one-page administrative closure document.
The parties subsequently engaged in settlement negotiations and reached an agreement in principle to resolve the dispute. The Court was formally advised that the action had been settled, prompting the entry of this dispositive order. No pending motions or scheduled hearings are identified by name in the record before the Court at the time of dismissal. The order reflects a routine procedural step following a represented settlement rather than an adjudication of the merits of the underlying class action claims.
The Court’s Holding
The Court dismissed the civil action without costs and without prejudice. The dismissal preserves the right of any party to move to re-open the action within 30 days upon a showing of good cause if the settlement is not consummated. This conditional dismissal structure ensures judicial economy while protecting the parties' rights should the settlement agreement fail to be finalized. The order expressly states that the action is dismissed 'without costs and without prejudice to the right to re-open the action within 30 days upon good cause shown if the settlement is not completed.'
Additionally, the Court denied any pending motions as moot and vacated all scheduled hearing dates. The order was entered on October 23, 2026, by United States District Judge André Birotte Jr. The disposition reflects a routine administrative closure following a represented settlement, leaving the merits of the underlying claims unadjudicated. The order does not address the substance of the plaintiff's class action allegations, nor does it make any findings regarding liability, damages, or the propriety of class certification.
Key Takeaways
- The case was dismissed without prejudice based on the parties' representation that the matter has settled.
- Parties retain a 30-day window to move to re-open the case upon good cause if the settlement is not completed.
- All pending motions were denied as moot and all hearing dates were vacated.
- The dismissal order does not address the merits of the plaintiff's class action allegations.
- Judge André Birotte Jr. presided over the matter in the Central District of California.
Why It Matters
This order represents a standard procedural mechanism for closing settled cases in federal court while safeguarding the parties' ability to return to court if settlement terms are not fulfilled. The 30-day re-opening provision balances finality with flexibility, avoiding the need for a new filing should the settlement collapse. Because the dismissal is without prejudice and without costs, neither party prevails on the merits, and the underlying legal questions remain unresolved for any future proceedings.
The order also illustrates the common practice in the Central District of California of using conditional dismissal orders to manage settled cases efficiently. By denying pending motions as moot and vacating hearing dates, the Court conserves judicial resources while preserving the parties' rights. The case remains administratively closed but can be reopened within the specified window if the settlement is not completed, ensuring that the plaintiff's claims are not permanently barred by a procedural dismissal.