Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 19, 2024

Paulino v. Sony Music Entertainment

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:24-cv-01506
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Paulino v. Sony Music Entertainment, Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice and without costs, subject to a 30-day reopening procedure.

Who this affects

Patria Paulino and defendants Sony Music Entertainment, Columbia Records, Ron Perry, Kimberly Greenman, Jenny Schecter, and Alexa Abrams.

What happened

In Paulino v. Sony Music Entertainment, the parties told the court that they had reached an agreement resolving all issues. The opinion does not describe the agreement's terms or the underlying claims.

The court canceled all scheduled conferences and other deadlines. It also directed the Clerk of Court 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 may ask to reopen the case within 30 days if they show good cause. Within that same period, they may also ask the court to retain authority to enforce their settlement by submitting the agreement and a specific request for retained jurisdiction.

The detailed version

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

Case
Paulino v. Sony Music Entertainment · No. 1:24-cv-01506
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
Nov. 19, 2024

Background

Patria Paulino sued Sony Music Entertainment, Columbia Records, Ron Perry, Kimberly Greenman, Jenny Schecter, and Alexa Abrams. The opinion does not state the substance of Paulino’s claims. On November 19, 2024, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement on all issues.

Court’s Action

Based on the parties’ agreement, the court canceled all previously scheduled conferences and other deadlines. The court dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning the case cannot ordinarily be brought again, and ordered that neither party would recover costs, including attorneys’ fees. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate all open motions and close the case.

Possible Reopening and Settlement Enforcement

The parties may apply to reopen the case within 30 days of the order. Such an application must show good cause for keeping the case open despite the settlement. The court stated that a request filed after 30 days or without a showing of good cause may be denied solely on that basis.

If the parties want the court to retain jurisdiction—that is, continuing authority—to enforce their settlement agreement, they must, within the same 30-day period, submit the agreement under Rule 7.A of the court’s Individual Practices and request an order expressly retaining jurisdiction. The opinion does not say whether the parties made that request or disclose the settlement’s terms.

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.