Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund v…
Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund, Welfare Fund, Annuity Fund, Apprenticeship, Journeyman Retraining, Educational and Industry Fund v. Biltmore General Contractors Inc.
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:23-cv-11275
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund v. Biltmore General Contractors Inc., Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice and without costs.
The plaintiffs—Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund, Welfare Fund, Annuity Fund, Apprenticeship, Journeyman Retraining, Educational and Industry Fund; Trustees of the New York City Carpenters Relief and Charity Fund; and The Carpenter Contractor Alliance of Metropolitan New York—and the defendants, Biltmore General Contractors Inc. and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. The case was closed without costs, including attorneys’ fees, to either party, subject to the stated 30-day procedures for possible reopening or retention of jurisdiction to enforce the settlement.
What happened
Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund, Welfare Fund, Annuity Fund, Apprenticeship, Journeyman Retraining, Educational and Industry Fund, Trustees of the New York City Carpenters Relief and Charity Fund, and The Carpenter Contractor Alliance of Metropolitan New York v. Biltmore General Contractors Inc. and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company was resolved after the parties told the court they had reached an agreement on all issues.
The court canceled all previously 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, to either party. The parties may ask to reopen the case within 30 days if they show good cause, and they may ask the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce their settlement by submitting the settlement agreement and a separate request within that period.
The detailed version
- Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund v… · No. 1:23-cv-11275
- Valerie Caproni
- Mar. 3, 2025
Background
On February 27, 2025, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement on all issues. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the terms of the parties’ agreement.
Court’s 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. The clerk was directed to terminate all open motions and close the case.
Possible Reopening or Continued Jurisdiction
Within 30 days of the order, the parties may apply to reopen the case. The application must show good cause for keeping the case open in light of 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 to enforce their settlement agreement, they must, within the same 30-day period, submit the settlement agreement under Rule 7.A of the court’s Individual Practices and ask the court to issue an order expressly retaining jurisdiction. The court cited Hendrickson v. United States, 791 F.3d 354 (2d Cir. 2015).
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.