Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 5, 2024

Ferber v. Hourglass Holdings, Inc.

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:24-cv-01744
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Ferber v. Hourglass Holdings, Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice and without costs, while permitting a 30-day reopening request.

Who this affects

Matthew L Ferber, Hourglass Holdings, Inc. doing business as BOKA, and 9 St. Marks Place, Inc.

What happened

In Ferber v. Hourglass Holdings, Inc., the parties told the court that they had reached an agreement resolving all issues. The order does not describe the agreement’s terms.

Judge Caproni canceled all previously scheduled conferences and deadlines. The court 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, to either party. Within 30 days, the parties could ask to reopen the case by showing good cause; they could also ask the court to retain authority to enforce their settlement if they submitted the agreement and a proper request within that period.

The detailed version

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

Case
Ferber v. Hourglass Holdings, Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-01744
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
Aug. 5, 2024

Background

On August 2, 2024, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement on all issues. The order does not provide the settlement’s terms or explain the underlying claims.

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. “With prejudice” means the dismissal bars the parties from bringing the same case again. The clerk was directed to terminate all open motions and close the case.

Reopening and Settlement Enforcement

Within 30 days of the order, the parties could apply to reopen the case by showing good cause for keeping it open despite the settlement. The order states that a request filed after 30 days or without a showing of good cause may be denied on that basis alone. If the parties wanted the court to retain 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.

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.