Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 9, 2024

Volfman v. Clinton East Corp.

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:24-cv-01899
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Volfman v. Clinton East Corp., Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice and without costs.

Who this affects

Joseph Volfman, Clinton East Corp. d/b/a Omar’s Rum Bar, and 29 Clinton Street Associates, L.P.; the case was closed after the parties reported reaching a settlement.

What happened

In Volfman v. Clinton East Corp., the parties told the court that they had reached an agreement resolving all issues through mediation.

The court canceled scheduled conferences and deadlines, dismissed the case with prejudice, ordered that neither side pay costs or attorneys’ fees, terminated open motions, and closed the case. The opinion does not describe the settlement’s terms.

Judge Valerie Caproni allowed the parties 30 days to request reopening for good cause. Within that period, they could also ask the court to retain authority to enforce their settlement by submitting the agreement and a request for that authority.

The detailed version

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

Case
Volfman v. Clinton East Corp. · No. 1:24-cv-01899
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
Aug. 9, 2024

Background

On August 8, 2024, the court was notified through mediation that the parties had reached an agreement on all issues. The opinion does not provide the settlement’s terms or describe the underlying claims.

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 of Court was directed to terminate all open motions and close the case.

Reopening and Settlement Enforcement

The parties were given 30 days from the order to apply to reopen the case. Any such application had to show good cause for keeping the case open despite the settlement and had to be filed within 30 days. A late application or one without a showing of good cause could be denied on that basis alone.

The order also stated that, if the parties wanted the court to retain authority to enforce their settlement agreement, they had to submit the agreement under Rule 7.A of the court’s Individual Practices 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.