Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 4, 2024

Dreamgro Enterprises, LLC v. Cutie Pie Baby, Inc.

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:24-cv-02514
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Dreamgro Enterprises v. Cutie Pie Baby, Judge Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs after the parties reported an agreement in principle.

Who this affects

Dreamgro Enterprises, LLC and Cutie Pie Baby, Inc.; the order canceled case deadlines, closed the case, and set a 30-day period for any request to reopen or retain authority to enforce the settlement.

What happened

Dreamgro Enterprises, LLC v. Cutie Pie Baby, Inc. ended after the parties told the court they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues.

The court canceled all scheduled conferences and other deadlines. It also directed the clerk to terminate all open motions and close the case.

Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, including attorneys’ fees. The parties could ask to reopen the case within 30 days by showing good cause; they also had 30 days to ask the court to retain authority to enforce their settlement agreement and to submit that agreement.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Dreamgro Enterprises, LLC v. Cutie Pie Baby, Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-02514
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
June 4, 2024

Background

On May 31, 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 provide the terms of the agreement.

Court’s action

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.

Reopening and settlement enforcement

Within 30 days, the parties could apply to reopen the case by showing good cause for keeping it open despite their settlement. The court stated that an application filed after 30 days, or filed without a showing of good cause, could be denied solely on that basis. If the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—that is, authority—to enforce their settlement agreement, they had to submit the agreement and request an order expressly retaining that authority within the same 30-day period.

Disposition

The case was dismissed with prejudice and without costs. The order did not decide the underlying claims on their merits; it disposed of the case based on the parties’ reported agreement in principle.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.